LB

[2016] WASAT 126

LB [2016] WASAT 126

Jurisdiction:	STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL	Citation No:	[2016] WASAT 126
Act:	GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1990 (WA)
Case No:	GAA:2980/2016	Heard:	4 OCTOBER 2016
Coram:	MR J MANSVELD (SENIOR MEMBER)	Delivered:	24/10/16
No of pages:	16	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Public Advocate reappointed as guardian Public Trustee reappointed as administrator
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	LB
Catchwords:	Guardianship and administration Young man with intellectual disability Public Advocate appointed as guardian Public Trustee appointed as administrator Review of guardianship and administration orders Recent decline in the young man's mental health Parents divorced and having difficulties in communicating with each other Young man and his family live in the south­west of Western Australia Guardian stationed in Perth Concern raised by young man's parents that guardian not sufficiently available or engaged in the young man's life Guardian required to encourage young man to live in the general community and act as his advocate Despite the tyranny of distance guardian needs to be involved as intensively as the young man's needs demand
Legislation:	Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), s 3, s 4, s 43, s 44, s 45, s 51, s 51(2)(a), s 64, s 68, s 69, s 84, s 90
Case References:	Nil
Summary	In 2014 guardianship and administration orders were made for LB a 19­year­old man with Downs Syndrome and an attendant intellectual disability.,The orders were made pursuant to the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA).,The Public Advocate was appointed LB's guardian and the Public Trustee as the administrator of his estate.,LB's parents were divorced and communication between them was limited and very difficult.,The guardianship and administration orders were the subject of a review by the Tribunal given that when they were made in 2014 a review date of two years was set.,At the time of the review LB was living with his father on his father's farm after a recently rapid decline in his mental state. Prior to that arrangement he had been living one month each with his mother and father in rotation.,It was the hope of LB's parents that he would eventually live away from them in more independent accommodation with people of his own age.,LB's father in particular was concerned that the guardian was not sufficiently engaged with LB and his family to ensure that he made a successful transition to adulthood. The concern was that the family lived in the south-west of Western Australia and the guardian was stationed in Perth.,Although the Tribunal accepted that LB's parents had his best interests at heart, because of their ongoing difficult relationship they were unable to present a coordinated and united front to those agencies and organisations that needed to be engaged with to progress LB's future accommodation options and the attendant support services.,The Tribunal found that in reappointing the Public Advocate it was the case that LB's parents would continue to play a crucial role in his ongoing development and should be actively involved in the decisions that needed to be made for him. In that regard the parties were reminded of s 51 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) which amongst other things required the guardian to encourage LB to live in the general community and participate as much as possible in the life of the community, to take account of his views and wishes and to maintain any supportive relationships that he had.,The Tribunal restated that the guardian was also required to act as an advocate for LB when undertaking the decision­making role. In doing so the guardian needed to engage with the process of meeting LB's needs as intensively as the situation demanded despite the tyranny of distance. The Tribunal agreed with LB's father that if LB was permitted to live on the farm for too long it would become increasingly difficult to 'persuade' him to accept more suitable longer term (and independent) accommodation.,The Tribunal decided to reappoint the Public Advocate as LB's guardian and the Public Trustee as the administrator of his estate.

JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ACT : GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1990 (WA) CITATION : LB [2016] WASAT 126 MEMBER : MR J MANSVELD (SENIOR MEMBER) HEARD : 4 OCTOBER 2016 DELIVERED : 24 OCTOBER 2016 FILE NO/S : GAA 2980 of 2016 MATTER : LB

Represented Person

Catchwords:

Guardianship and administration - Young man with intellectual disability - Public Advocate appointed as guardian - Public Trustee appointed as administrator - Review of guardianship and administration orders - Recent decline in the young man's mental health - Parents divorced and having difficulties in communicating with each other - Young man and his family live in the south­west of Western Australia - Guardian stationed in Perth - Concern raised by young man's parents that guardian not sufficiently available or engaged in the young man's life - Guardian required to encourage young man to live in the general community and act as his advocate - Despite the tyranny of distance guardian needs to be involved as intensively as the young man's needs demand

Legislation:

Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), s 3, s 4, s 43, s 44, s 45, s 51, s 51(2)(a), s 64, s 68, s 69, s 84, s 90

Result:

Public Advocate reappointed as guardian

Public Trustee reappointed as administrator

Summary of Tribunal's decision:

In 2014 guardianship and administration orders were made for LB a 19­year­old man with Downs Syndrome and an attendant intellectual disability.

The orders were made pursuant to the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA).
The Public Advocate was appointed LB's guardian and the Public Trustee as the administrator of his estate.
LB's parents were divorced and communication between them was limited and very difficult.
The guardianship and administration orders were the subject of a review by the Tribunal given that when they were made in 2014 a review date of two years was set.
At the time of the review LB was living with his father on his father's farm after a recently rapid decline in his mental state. Prior to that arrangement he had been living one month each with his mother and father in rotation.
It was the hope of LB's parents that he would eventually live away from them in more independent accommodation with people of his own age.
LB's father in particular was concerned that the guardian was not sufficiently engaged with LB and his family to ensure that he made a successful transition to adulthood. The concern was that the family lived in the south-west of Western Australia and the guardian was stationed in Perth.
Although the Tribunal accepted that LB's parents had his best interests at heart, because of their ongoing difficult relationship they were unable to present a coordinated and united front to those agencies and organisations that needed to be engaged with to progress LB's future accommodation options and the attendant support services.
The Tribunal found that in reappointing the Public Advocate it was the case that LB's parents would continue to play a crucial role in his ongoing development and should be actively involved in the decisions that needed to be made for him. In that regard the parties were reminded of s 51 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) which amongst other things required the guardian to encourage LB to live in the general community and participate as much as possible in the life of the community, to take account of his views and wishes and to maintain any supportive relationships that he had.
The Tribunal restated that the guardian was also required to act as an advocate for LB when undertaking the decision­making role. In doing so the guardian needed to engage with the process of meeting LB's needs as intensively as the situation demanded despite the tyranny of distance. The Tribunal agreed with LB's father that if LB was permitted to live on the farm for too long it would become increasingly difficult to 'persuade' him to accept more suitable longer term (and independent) accommodation.
The Tribunal decided to reappoint the Public Advocate as LB's guardian and the Public Trustee as the administrator of his estate.

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Represented Person : N/A

Solicitors:

Represented Person : N/A

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:

Introduction

1 LB is a 19­year­old man who has Downs Syndrome with an attendant intellectual disability. He lives in the south­west of Western Australia as do his parents, RB, his father and KB, his mother (also referred to in these reasons as LB's father, mother and parents).

2 LB's parents are divorced.

3 LB has a brother, AB.

4 In 2014 both RB and KB made applications for guardianship and administration orders in respect to LB pursuant to the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) (GA Act). RB made the applications jointly with AB.

5 At the time of making the applications, LB was 17 years of age. A guardian can be appointed for a person who is 17 years old but can only begin to operate when the person reaches the age of 18 years: s 43(1)(a) and s 43(2c) of the GA Act. There is no such limitation in the making of an administration order: s 64 of the GA Act.

6 On 30 September 2014 the Tribunal appointed the Public Advocate as limited guardian to decide the following for LB:

• Where and with whom he was to live either permanently or temporarily;

• Whether he should work, and, if so, the nature or type of work, for whom he was to work and related matters;

• To make his treatment decisions;

• To determine what contact, if any, he should have with others and the extent of that contact;

• To determine the services to which he should have access; and

• To decide what education and training he should receive.

7 The guardianship order would begin to operate on 21 October 2014, the day LB attained the age of 18 years: s 43(2c) of the GA Act.

8 Also on 30 September 2014, the Public Trustee was appointed the plenary administrator of LB's estate.

9 Both the guardianship order and the administration order were set to be reviewed in two years: s 84 of the GA Act.

10 The matter before the Tribunal is the review of the guardianship and administration orders made on 30 September 2014.

11 The hearing was attended by LB's parents, RB and KB, LB's brother, AB, NB from a support agency (support agency), a representative of the Public Advocate (guardian) and family members.

12 RB advised the Tribunal that LB had decided not to attend the hearing.

13 The decision was reserved.

Relevant legislation

14 The primary concern of the Tribunal is the best interests of LB: s 4(2) of the GA Act.

15 In considering the applications the Tribunal shall, as far as possible, seek to ascertain the views and wishes of LB as expressed, in whatever manner, at the time, or as gathered from LB's previous actions: s 4(7) of the GA Act.

16 LB is presumed to be capable of looking after his own health and safety; making reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to his person; managing his own affairs; and making reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to his estate, until the contrary is proved to the satisfaction of the Tribunal: s 4(3) of the GA Act.

17 Under s 43(1)(b) of the GA Act the Tribunal cannot consider appointing a guardian for LB unless it is satisfied, on the evidence, that he is incapable of looking after his own health and safety; is unable to make reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to his person; or is in need of oversight, care or control in the interests of his own health and safety or for the protection of others.

18 Under s 64(1)(a) of the GA Act the Tribunal cannot consider appointing an administrator of the estate of LB unless it is satisfied, on the evidence, that by reason of a mental disability, he is unable to make reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to all or any part of his estate.

19 Mental disability is defined in s 3 of the GA Act to include an intellectual disability, a psychiatric condition, an acquired brain injury and dementia.

20 If a finding of incapacity is made in respect to LB, the Tribunal must further determine whether he is in need of guardianship and administration orders. If the needs of LB can be met in a manner less restrictive of his freedom of decision and action, then orders should not be made: s 4(4), s 43(1)(c) and s 64(1)(b) of the GA Act.

21 If the Tribunal decides that LB is in need of guardianship and administration orders, it must then decide what authority should be given to the guardian and administrator, who the guardian and administrator should be and what review date should be set, given the requirement that orders must be reviewed at least once every five years: s 43(1)(d), s 43(1)(e), s 44, s 45, s 64(1)(c), s 64(1)(d), s 68, s 69 and s 84 of the GA Act.

22 As to the authority given to a guardian, if a limited order is sufficient to meet the needs of LB, then a plenary order should not be made. If limited guardianship and administration orders are made, the orders must place the least restriction necessary on LB: s 4(5) and s 4(6) of the GA Act.

23 Under s 90 of the GA Act, when reviewing an administration or guardianship order, the Tribunal can confirm the order, amend the order, revoke the order or revoke the order and substitute another order for it.

The question of LB's capacity

24 The Tribunal has before it reports from a number of general practitioners who have attended to LB over a period of time. The reports confirm that LB has Downs Syndrome and an intellectual disability.

25 The Tribunal has been provided with a report from the Local Coordinator (LC) of the Disability Services Commission (DSC). The LC states that LB has limited communication skills and makes his basic needs known through limited words and non­verbal communication. The LC states that since July 2016, LB has had a number of presentations to the emergency departments at local hospitals with apparent psychosomatic symptoms. LB has been prescribed antidepressant medication and referred for a psychiatric assessment through community mental health services.

26 The concern over LB's mental state is supported by the guardian and LB's parents. KB, in particular, states that LB 'stopped functioning' for about two weeks in July 2016. KB says that LB was deposited at his property early one morning after not having eaten for almost two weeks. He experienced LB not eating and sleeping and said that the gradual recovery was extremely fraught and he felt that he and LB had been to 'hell and back'.

27 KB states that LB has been diagnosed with a panic disorder which can be treated. Treatment initially occurred through LB's general practitioner but more recently LB has been referred to a psychiatrist and also a specialised agency.

28 It is common ground that LB is a person for whom guardianship and administration orders can continue to be made. I am satisfied, on the evidence, and declare that LB is incapable of looking after his own health and safety; unable to make reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to his person or estate and is in need of oversight, care or control in the interests of his own health and safety: s 43(1)(b) and s 64(1)(a) of the GA Act.

The evidence and submissions of the guardian

29 The guardian submitted a report with the Tribunal and gave oral evidence.

30 The guardian states that during the term of the current guardianship order, LB has resided with either RB or KB. The guardian notes that LB is currently living with his father and this has been the situation for a number of months after LB became very unwell and his mental state declined.

31 The guardian states that living in either of his parents homes has presented a challenge in providing support services to LB because the homes are far apart. The guardian says that the support agency was selected as the service provider (with funding from the DSC) after a previous service lost its accreditation.

32 The guardian states that consent was given for LB to have an individual plan prepared by DSC with goals that acknowledge LB's transition to adulthood including community integration and increasing his work skills and employability.

33 The guardian states that a decision was ultimately made to have LB live one month with his father and one month with his mother in rotation. This has changed in recent times with LB staying full­time with his father after the decompensation of his mental state and advice that he required a degree of stability in his accommodation.

34 The guardian states that although LB does not currently wish to live with his mother, he nonetheless does want to see her and has telephone contact with her to arrange visits.

35 The guardian states that the function in the current guardianship order of making LB's treatment decisions has been difficult because of the immediacy of the decision­making particularly during the time LB was unwell.

36 The guardian submits that the Public Advocate should be reappointed as LB's guardian with reduced functions. The guardian proposes that a guardianship order should include decisions around LB's accommodation, service provision, education, training and work. The guardian submits that treatment decisions can best be made by either parent depending on where LB is living and that is effectively what has been happening. Contact is largely decided by LB himself, for example, the current arrangements to visit KB. The guardian states that there are still possible contact issues for the festive times of the year particularly at Easter and at Christmas.

37 The guardian supports the ongoing appointment of the Public Trustee as administrator of LB's estate.

The Public Trustee

38 In a report provided to the Tribunal the Trust Manager (TM) from the Public Trustee states that she has had contact with both of LB's parents during the term of the administration order.

39 The TM states that in recent contact RB has expressed a frustration that he has been unable to achieve the best outcomes for LB. The TM reports that RB has told her that it is in LB's best interests for him to live in supported accommodation with other people of his age.

40 The TM submits that in his contact with LB's parents she has formed the view that they both clearly want what is best for their son but do not always agree on how this should be done.

41 The TM is of the view that RB is a strong advocate for LB but that his expectations 'are unrealistic as to what can immediately be achieved for [LB] from support agencies'.

The Local Coordinator (LC)

42 In her report, LC states that LB's parents separated in 2010 and subsequently divorced. A Family Court order provided for shared custody when LB was still a child.

43 The LC states that LB finished his final year of school at an education support centre in 2014. She says that LB participated in supported work experience and that he needed close supervision given his low attention span and tendency to role­play. More recently LB has been supported in undertaking some volunteer work.

44 The LC describes the relationship between LB's parents as 'dysfunctional' and that up until his hospitalisation in July 2016, LB's parents communicated predominantly by text messaging in respect of travel arrangements and related matters.

45 The LC is of the view that LB is not able to express his wishes in relation to any order that might be made for him. She says that a new communication system will be tried to determine whether this will give LB a better chance of communicating his views and wishes. The LC surmises that LB's psychosomatic symptoms may have been his attempt to communicate.

46 The LC states that prior to the making of the guardianship and administration orders in 2014, planning concerning LB's future was stalled due to the opposing views of his parents. The LC supports the ongoing appointment of the Public Advocate and the Public Trustee. She is concerned that without such appointments LB may be placed in a position of choosing between his parents.

The support agency

47 In her oral evidence, NB states that LB receives 44 hours of support a week from DSC funding.

48 NB states that since LB has been living full­time with his father (on the father's farm) it has been difficult to consistently get support workers to attend.

49 NB states that LB is very comfortable on the farm but that this compromises his transition to independent living.

50 NB is of the view that both of LB's parents want what is in his best interests and that they acknowledge that he should have contact with them both.

51 NB states that finding suitable long­term accommodation for LB will be challenging because of his wishes currently to remain living with his father.

52 NB supports the reappointment of the Public Advocate but agrees with the guardian that decisions around treatment and contact can be removed from the guardianship order and be made by LB's parents.

The evidence and submissions of RB (LB's father)

53 RB provided a written submission to the Tribunal and gave oral evidence.

54 In his written submission RB expresses his disappointment with the role of the Public Advocate and Public Trustee since the guardianship and administration orders were made in 2014. RB expresses a particular disappointment concerning the recent decline in LB's mental state and what he says were his unsuccessful attempts to contact the guardian.

55 RB states that whilst in the care of his mother, LB was admitted to hospital. During this time LB had stopped sleeping, eating and drinking and was unable to toilet himself. RB states that he was left to deal with this situation.

56 RB states that when LB came to live with him it took five days to stabilise LB's health. RB states:

… At no time during this difficult/stressful time (where we did not get any sleep) did anyone who is paid to support [LB] contact me to see how [LB] was including [LB]'s guardian, only when I attempted to contact the guardian a discussion was had.

57 RB states that he has been informed by the guardian that LB is required to spend time with his mother (which RB says he supports), however, LB has repeatedly made clear that he does not want to spend time in his mother's home.

58 RB states that it has been extremely frustrating because he has had to make contact with the guardian to obtain consent for LB's treatment and to try and access additional carers (which he says has not happened) to help his son's recovery from his mental health issues.

59 RB states that in the last two years KB has continually accused him of stopping LB from seeing her, however, he says that they have had many phone conversations and is of the view that he and KB can communicate in respect to LB's needs.

60 In his oral evidence RB states that LB is moving into adulthood and is in need of independent living which cannot happen if he continues to live with either of his parents. RB says that in his view group living would be the best option for LB.

61 RB states that LB enjoys his own company and likes living on the farm but as a consequence he is very socially isolated and this should not be allowed to continue indefinitely. RB states that given appropriate time, LB himself would be able to decide himself where he eventually would like to live.

62 RB submits that LB needs a guardian who is readily available and who plays a significant role in the transition to independent living. He says that a guardian should be available in the area in which LB lives. RB submits that what is required is a team approach.

63 RB states that he and KB can make LB's treatment decisions (depending on where LB is living) because in effect that is what has been happening. He reiterated that he is able to communicate with KB.

64 In regard to the ongoing appointment of a guardian and an administrator for LB, RB states in his submission:

Lastly as [LB]'s father and advocate, if [the] State Administrati[ve] Tribunal are going to make decisions on [LB]'s behalf, to appoint paid persons to make decisions for [LB], the tribunal needs to hold them (the paid persons) accountable for outcomes and if they are not performing they need to be held accountable by the tribunal, so can you please do the right thing for my son [LB].

The evidence and submissions of KB (LB's mother)

65 In her oral evidence KB states that the focus must be on securing LB's independence.

66 KB submits that LB needs someone closer to where he lives to make treatment decisions and she agrees with RB that despite their communication difficulties she and RB are able to make the treatment decisions. KB submits that she has come to this view because she believes that either she or RB will make appropriate medical decisions for LB.

67 KB states that she is concerned at the pressure RB is currently under in dealing with LB's mental health issues and questions whether RB needs a break from that caring role.

68 KB states that she has not had undue difficulty in contacting LB's guardian when she has felt the need to do so.

69 KB states that she is unable to work with RB in respect to the needs generally of LB because although they may share the goal of LB's independence they have different approaches to that end.

70 KB supports the reappointment of the Public Advocate as LB's guardian to make decisions about his accommodation, education, training and work, and his contact with others.

71 KB states that she is happy with the services being provided through the support agency.

72 KB also supports the reappointment of the Public Trustee as the administrator of LB's estate.

Evidence and submissions of AB (LB's brother)

73 AB submits (and with this he agrees with his parents) that LB needs a guardian who lives in the area in which he lives and who knows LB. AB says that it is not the role of the family to find such a guardian.

Discussion

74 LB is facing a difficult and a critical time in his young life. At 19 years of age he is entering his adult life with all the psychological implications that has for any person. This situation is more difficult for LB because he is largely dependent on others to make decisions about how the transition to adulthood and the degree of independence he can have, will be achieved.

75 In addition, LB is unable to clearly communicate his views and wishes other than by his actions which can put his mental health at risk as evidenced by the recent decompensation of his mental state.

76 I accept that LB's parents have his best interests at heart, but due to their ongoing difficult relationship, they are unable to present a coordinated and united front to those agencies and organisations that must be engaged with to progress LB's future accommodation options and the attendant support services.

77 Given recent events, I am concerned that the circumstances of LB have placed great strain on his parents, in particular his father, such that LB's living situation is in a state of flux which cannot continue indefinitely. For example, the consistent provision of support services by way of the support agency's workers/carers on RB's farm is problematic.

78 The decision about LB's ongoing accommodation is a challenging one given the context of his recent decline in mental health, his current wishes and the difficulty he has in expressing himself.

79 I have sympathy for the concerns of LB's parents at having a guardian who is based in Perth and the associated difficulties in dealing with the intensive planning that must be undertaken to appropriately deal with LB's needs. Ideally that planning would take place 'on the ground' with the ability to quickly adjust to changing circumstances.

80 Despite this, I am not convinced that currently LB's parents are in a position either individually, or jointly, to achieve all that needs to be done to plan for and make the necessary decisions concerning LB's transition to the degree of independence that he can attain.

81 For these reasons, it is my view that it is in LB's current best interests that the Public Advocate remain as his guardian to decide his accommodation and the necessary support services that he will require wherever he lives. I accept that the transition process will include the need to make decisions about whether LB has any further education and training and also what work related options are available for him. These associated functions should also remain with the Public Advocate.

82 I do not agree with the guardian that the contact function should be removed from the guardianship order at this time. Although for practical purposes LB is currently deciding the level of contact he should have with his mother, a realistic view is that he will eventually change his accommodation to more independent living (certainly that is the hope), which, in my view, means that contact will remain a live issue that will make arrangements difficult if, as is currently the case, the parents do not effectively communicate.

83 I accept that for all practical purposes LB's treatment decisions have been made by his parents largely individually, it would appear, depending on where he has been living. The recent events highlight the difficulty that RB has faced obtaining consent for treatment from the guardian in a highly volatile set of circumstances. Both of LB's parents agree that each of them can make treatment decisions when required and will do so in LB's best interests, despite their communication difficulties. I will therefore not include the treatment function in the guardianship order.

84 In reappointing the Public Advocate it is of course the case that LB's parents will continue to play a crucial role in his ongoing development and should be actively involved by the guardian in respect to any decision that needs to be made. In that regard, I draw the attention of the parties to s 51 of the GA Act which, amongst other things, requires the guardian to encourage LB to live in the general community and participate as much as possible in the community, to take account of his views and wishes and to maintain any supportive relationships that he has.

85 It is also the role of the guardian to act as an advocate for LB when undertaking the decision­making role: s 51(2)(a) of the GA Act. In doing so, the guardian must engage with the process of meeting LB's needs as intensively as the situation demands despite the tyranny of distance. I agree with RB that if LB is permitted to live on the farm for too long it will become increasingly difficult to 'persuade' him to accept more suitable longer term (and independent) accommodation.

86 As regards LB's finances, which are limited, there seems to be no dispute that the Public Trustee should remain as the plenary administrator of his estate.

87 I will set the review of the guardianship and administration orders in two years on the basis that in that period of time a more permanent accommodation decision for LB would have been made and therefore his circumstances, hopefully, stabilised. It might be then that the role of the Public Advocate in particular is no longer required.

Orders

The Tribunal declares that the represented person, [LB];

(a) is unable, by reason of a mental disability, to make reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to all of his estate; and

(b) is in need of an administrator of his estate,

(c) is incapable of looking after his own health and safety;

(d) is unable to make reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to his person;

(e) is in need of oversight, care or control in the interests of his own health and safety; and

(f) is in need of a guardian,


and the Tribunal orders that:

The administration order dated 30 September 2014 is confirmed as follows:

1. The Public Trustee of 553 Hay Street, Perth, Western Australia is appointed plenary administrator of the estate of the represented person with all the powers and duties conferred by the Act.

2. The administrator is authorised to expend up to a total amount of $500 per annum on gifts on behalf of the represented person.

The guardianship order dated 30 August 2014 is amended so that it now reads:

3. The Public Advocate of David Malcolm Justice Centre, Level 23, 28 Barrack Street, Perth, Western Australia be appointed limited guardian of the represented person with the following functions:


(a) To decide where the represented person is to live, whether permanently or temporarily;

(b) To decide with whom the represented person is to live;

(c) To decide whether the represented person should work and, if so, the nature or type of work, for whom the represented person is to work and related matters;

(d) To determine what contact, if any, the represented person should have with others and the extent of that contact;

(e) To determine the services to which the represented person should have access; and

(f) To decide what education and training the represented person is to receive.


4. The administration and guardianship orders are to be reviewed by 20 October 2018.

I certify that this and the preceding [87] paragraphs comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.

___________________________________

MR J MANSVELD, SENIOR MEMBER