KH
[2014] QCAT 585
•19 November 2014
| CITATION: | KH [2014] QCAT 585 |
| PARTIES: | KH |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | GAA6373-14 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Guardianship and administration matters for adults |
| HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | Senior Member Endicott |
| DELIVERED ON: | 19 November 2014 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
| ORDERS MADE: | The appointment of KM as guardian for KH for decisions about accommodation and provision of services is revoked. |
| CATCHWORDS: | GUARDIANSHIP – where guardian had been appointed to make accommodation and service decisions for an adult with impaired capacity – where a review was undertaken of that appointment – where there was no evidence that a guardian was needed to make any personal decisions – where the family was already acting as statutory health attorney to make health care decisions – whether appointment should be revoked Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 ss 12(1), 31(2) |
This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Act).
REASONS FOR DECISION
KH has been diagnosed with dementia. In 2013 she had been hospitalised and her son, KM, applied to QCAT for orders appointing him as the guardian and administrator for his mother. By order made on 20 September 2013, KM was appointed as guardian for decisions about accommodation and provision of services only. He was also appointed as administrator for all financial matters for his mother.
The guardianship appointment was made until further order of the tribunal and is now being reviewed. KM has provided a report setting out what decisions he has made as guardian since his appointment. Although KM did not mention in his report any decision he had made about accommodation, it is clear from the evidence given to the tribunal that he had made such a decision as his report states that his mother resides in an aged care facility. At the time of his application in 2013, KH had been in hospital awaiting placement into residential aged care. His report did not refer to any decisions he had made about service provision to KH.
The report from the guardian, however, sets out information about health care decisions made by KM. As the guardianship appointment did not include health care decisions, the decisions referred to in the report would have been made informally by KM as the statutory health attorney for his mother. He can continue to make health care decisions for KH as her statutory health.
When reviewing an appointment of a decision maker under the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000, the tribunal is required to revoke the appointment unless it is satisfied that it would make an appointment if a new application for an appointment were to be made to the tribunal.[1] The tribunal must look at all the evidence available to the tribunal to decide whether or not the appointment criteria set out in section 12 of the Act can be still satisfied.
[1]Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 s 31(2).
The evidence available to the tribunal about the capacity of KH for making her own decisions is clear. She has been diagnosed with vascular dementia, she has poor short term memory, she has difficulties retaining new information and exhibits periods of confusion. The evidence was sufficient to establish to my satisfaction that KH would not be able to understand the nature and effect of decisions about her own personal matters such as where she lived, what care was provided to her and what health care she should have. I concluded that KH has impaired decision-making capacity for personal matters.
There was no evidence that any personal decisions apart from ongoing health care are needed to be made for KH. There is no evidence that the decision- making needs of KH in relation to personal matters will not be adequately met unless a guardian remains in place for her.[2] Health care decisions are being currently made by KM as the statutory health attorney for his mother and not as her guardian. That position already ensures adequate decision-making about health care matters for KH.
[2]Ibid s 12(1) criteria for appointment of a guardian.
In the absence of evidence to satisfy all the appointment criteria in section 12 of the Act, I would not make an appointment of a guardian if a new application for the appointment of a guardian were to be made. Applying the provisions in section 31(2) of the Act, I must revoke the appointment of KM as guardian for KH.
0
0
0