Madelyn (a pseudonym)

[2025] NSWCATGD 10

NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Madelyn (a pseudonym) [2025] NSWCATGD 10

Hearing dates:

15 August 2025

Date of orders:

15 August 2025

Decision date:

15 August 2025

Jurisdiction:

Guardianship Division

Before:

S L Handebo, Principal Member

Decision:

A guardianship order for Madelyn made on 12 July 2024 has been reviewed and is confirmed.

Catchwords:

GUARDIANSHIP – requested review of guardianship order – 26-year-old woman with schizophrenia – whether order should be revoked – finding that the subject person continues to be a person “in need of a guardian” despite improvement in mental health – whether order should be varied to include a passport and travel function – concerns that subject person may be taken overseas to participate in a forced marriage – definition of “forced marriage” – insufficient evidence that subject person at risk of forced marriage – inclusion of passport and travel functions would be unnecessarily restrictive – guardianship order not varied – existing guardianship order confirmed.

Legislation Cited:

Guardianship Act 1987 (NSW), ss 3(1)-(2), 14, 14(2), 15(3), 17(1)

Cases Cited:

C S and M Y v the Guardianship Tribunal and the Public Guardian (Supreme Court (NSW), Windeyer J, 29 November 1999, unrep)

IF v IG [2004] NSWADTAP 3

P v D1 & Ors [2011] NSWSC 257

Re B [2011] NSWSC 1075

Texts Cited:

Australian Government, Attorney-General’s Department, “Forced Marriage”

18 August 2025

My Blue Sky

18 August 2025

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

017: Requested Review of Guardianship Order

Madelyn (the person)
Andrea (applicant)
Public Guardian (appointed guardian)

018: Requested Review of Guardianship Order

Madelyn (the person)
Janice (applicant)
Public Guardian (appointed guardian)

Representation:

J Creswell, separate representative for Madelyn

File Number(s):

NCAT 2020/00277472

Publication restriction:

Decisions of the Guardianship Division of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal have been anonymised to remove any information that may identify any person involved in the Tribunal’s proceedings: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW), s 65.

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. Madelyn is a 26-year-old woman who, at the time of the Hearing, was residing with her mother, Andrea, in Southwest Sydney. Prior to moving to live with Andrea, approximately one month prior to the Hearing, Madelyn was living in supported accommodation in West Sydney managed by a disability support service provider. Madelyn is a participant of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS).

2. Madelyn has been known to the Tribunal since 2021 when a guardianship order was first made for her. The guardianship order for Madelyn has been renewed and varied on multiple occasions since this time. The most recent guardianship order was made on 12 July 2024 when the Tribunal reappointed the Public Guardian as Madelyn’s guardian for a period of two years with the functions of accommodation, access, health care and services.

3. Madelyn has previously been subject to a financial management order. On 7 May 2025, this order was revoked by the Tribunal.

4. On 5 May 2025, the Tribunal received a request to review the guardianship order. This application was made by Andrea, who sought that the guardianship order be revoked.

5. On 20 June 2025, the Tribunal received a further request to review the guardianship order. This application was made by Janice, Specialist Support Coordinator, who sought that the guardianship order be varied by including a passport and travel function.

6. These Reasons for Decision relate to each of the requested reviews of the guardianship order made on 12 July 2024.

7. These Reasons for Decision should be read in conjunction with the Tribunal’s Reasons for Decision for the orders made on 15 March 2024 and 12 July 2024, portions of which are adopted herein.

8. On 23 July 2025, the Tribunal directed that Madelyn be separately represented in these proceedings. Julianna Creswell (“Julianna”), solicitor, has accepted the appointment as Madelyn’s separate representative.

9. The applications were listed for Hearing before the Tribunal on 15 August 2025. The Hearing was conducted from the Tribunal’s Sydney Registry with all participants attending by telephone or video, save for Julianna who attended the Hearing in person. The Hearing was attended by Madelyn; Andrea; Janice; Julianna; a Duty Guardian on behalf of the Public Guardian; Janice’s Manager; Mr Z, a Behaviour Support Practitioner; Ms Y, a Support Worker, and; Ms X, on behalf of Madelyn’s SIL provider.

10. At the conclusion of the Hearing the Tribunal decided to initially reserve its decision, identifying that a decision would be made in relation to the applications by no later than close of business the same day.

11. The Tribunal decided to confirm the guardianship order made on 12 July 2024. The effect of this decision is that the guardianship order made on 12 July 2024 will continue to operate without variation.

EVIDENCE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL

12. There was limited written evidence before the Tribunal in support of the current applications.

13. Aside from the contents of her application, Andrea did not submit any material to the Tribunal in support of her application to have the guardianship order revoked.

14. In support of the application to vary the functions under the guardianship order, Janice provided the Tribunal with the following material, in addition to the contents of her application and the covering email:

1. Letter from an Occupational Therapist, dated 18 June 2025; and,

2. Letter from Mr Z, Behaviour Support Practitioner, dated 18 June 2025.

15. As the applications relate to requested reviews of a guardianship order the Tribunal was not assisted by a Public Guardian Report identifying the decisions made by the Public Guardian under the existing order.

16. The Tribunal heard oral evidence and submissions from each of the participants at Hearing.

CONTEXT OF APPLICATION AND COMPETING PROPOSALS

17. The application submitted by Janice was made in the context of concerns about the risk of Madelyn being subject to a “forced marriage”.

18. Although Janice’s application did not use the term “forced marriage” the Tribunal adopts the term in these Reasons for Decision consistent with the terminology adopted by the Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department and the terminology of the Commonwealth Criminal Code.

19. According to the Commonwealth Attorney General’s Department [1] :

“A forced marriage is when a person gets married without freely and fully consenting, because they have been coerced, threatened or deceived, or because they are incapable of understanding the nature and effect of a marriage ceremony, for reasons including age or mental capacity.

Some types of coercion are obvious and easy to identify, including the use of physical or sexual violence, or refusing to let somebody leave a particular place or location until they accept the marriage. Other types of coercion are less obvious because they involve psychological and emotional pressure. These types of coercion can include making a person feel responsible for, or ashamed of the consequences of not marrying, such as bringing shame on their family.”

1.

20. The proposals ultimately advanced at Hearing are summarised as follows:

1. Madelyn and Andrea sought that the guardianship order be revoked.

2. Janice, her Manager, and Mr Z sought that the guardianship order be varied to include additional functions, namely relating to possession of Madelyn’s passport and decisions regarding international travel. This position was supported by the Public Guardian.

3. Ms X and Ms Y supported a continuation of the existing order, but did not support the inclusion of the proposed additional functions.

4. Julianna supported a continuation of the existing functions. She did not offer a concluded view as to whether the proposed additional functions should be included, instead identifying arguments in favour and opposition to the inclusion of such functions.

WHAT DID THE TRIBUNAL HAVE TO DECIDE?

21. On reviewing the current guardianship order the Tribunal may confirm, vary, suspend, revoke, renew or renew and vary the order.

22. Accordingly, the questions to be considered by the Tribunal are:

• Is Madelyn someone for whom the Tribunal could make an order?

• Should the guardianship order continue, be revoked or be renewed?

• What functions should now be given to the guardian?

• Who should be the guardian?

23. Section 14 of the Guardianship Act 1987 (NSW) (“the Act”) provides that we may make a guardianship order for a person if we are satisfied that the person is “a person in need of a guardian”. A person in need of a guardian is “a person who, because of a disability, is totally or partially incapable of managing their person”: the Act, s 3(1). The disability must restrict them in one or more major life activities to the extent that they require supervision or social habilitation: the Act, s 3(2).

24. If the Tribunal is satisfied that a person is a person in need of a guardian, the Tribunal is required to exercise a discretion as to whether or not a further guardianship order should be made. Section 14(2) of the Act outlines a number of equally important factors for the Tribunal to consider and balance in the exercise of its discretion. These matters have no hierarchy or weighting and each is a mandatory consideration. However, the Tribunal must undertake a balancing exercise for its consideration of the matters in s 14(2) of the Act. When undertaking this task the Tribunal may be guided by the principles that are set out in s 4 of the Act (see IF v IG [2004] NSWADTAP 3).

25. The Tribunal has to be satisfied that any person appointed as a private guardian meets the following requirements in accordance with s 17(1) of the Act. He or she must:

1. have a personality generally compatible with the personality of the person under guardianship;

2. have no undue conflict of interest (particularly financial) with those of the person; and

3. be able and willing to exercise the functions of the order.

26. In deciding whether a person is able to undertake the role of guardian, the Tribunal must consider whether the proposed guardian is able, having regard to the circumstances, to exercise the functions in accordance with the principles set out in s 4 of the Act (C S and M Y v the Guardianship Tribunal and the Public Guardian (Supreme Court (NSW), Windeyer J, 29 November 1999, unrep) and Re B [2011] NSWSC 1075, [66]).

27. In P v D1 & Ors [2011] NSWSC 257, the Supreme Court noted the importance of a proposed guardian being able to demonstrate insight and explain plans for how to act as guardian objectively and without conflict of interest.

28. The Tribunal is not able to appoint the Public Guardian as a person’s guardian if there is a private person who can be appointed: the Act, s 15(3).

Is Madelyn someone for whom the Tribunal could make an order?

29. The Tribunal’s Reasons for Decision dated 12 July 2024, and in particular paras [35], [36] and [41] provide an accurate and useful summary of the medical and allied health evidence previously available to the Tribunal to ground the findings that Madelyn is a person in need of a guardian. Those paragraphs are relied upon by the Tribunal and adopted for the purpose of these Reasons for Decision.

30. There was no medical or allied health evidence available to the Tribunal inconsistent with the Tribunal’s previous findings.

31. At Hearing it was reported that Madelyn has previously been subject to a Community Treatment Order (“CTO”) from the Mental Health Review Tribunal. It was reported that following the CTO lapsing Madelyn continued treatment for her mental health for a period of time on a voluntary basis. This resulted in Madelyn’s depot being titrated down to the minimum dosage, with Madelyn ultimately ceasing this medication completely about “a month and a bit” ago. It was advanced at Hearing that this evidences an improvement in Madelyn’s mental health since the last guardianship order was made.

32. Notwithstanding the gains made by Madelyn in the management of her mental health concerns, all participants in the Hearing, with the exception of Madelyn and Andrea, were of the view that Madelyn’s mental ill health had not yet improved to the extent that she is no longer a person in need of a guardian. As discussed in more detail below, recent changes in Madelyn’s personal circumstances will likely necessitate further important decisions being made on Madelyn’s behalf, and there remain concerns that due to the functional and cognitive impacts of Madelyn’s disability, she continues to require supervision or social habilitation.

33. Madelyn did not agree that she is a person in need of a guardian. She told the Tribunal that she believes that she has been misdiagnosed with schizophrenia, that she would like a second (or subsequent) opinion of the accuracy of that diagnosis, that she is capable of making her own decisions, and that she would like the guardianship order to be lapsed.

34. Madelyn’s assertion that she has been misdiagnosed and would like another opinion is consistent with the position she advanced to the Tribunal in March 2024 and again in July 2024. Despite asserting her intention to obtain another opinion, it appears that she has not yet done so.

35. Whilst not specifically commenting on Madelyn’s diagnosis, Andrea asserted that Madelyn is “quite capable to make her own decisions”. The Tribunal notes that previous Reasons for Decision make reference to Madelyn’s family asserting that her “…diagnoses are incorrect, and her mental health and capacity are typical and sound and are unwilling to even accept that she has anxiety and depression” [2] .

    2. See paragraph [40] Reasons for Decision 12 July 2024.

36. Whilst the Tribunal has had regard to Madelyn’s views and her assertions about her own mental health, the Tribunal’s previous findings were based on objective medical and allied health reports, and there is currently no objective evidence to support Madelyn’s assertions.

37. It may be in Madelyn’s interests for her to attend upon a psychiatrist for the purpose of a review of her diagnosis, and for a copy of any report to be presented to the Tribunal for any subsequent review of the guardianship order. Madelyn may also wish to consider the appropriateness of attending upon a neuropsychologist for an assessment of her capacity and/or an occupational therapist for an assessment of her functional capacity.

38. In the absence of any further professional evidence to disturb the Tribunal’s previous findings, the Tribunal is satisfied that Madelyn continues to have a disability, namely schizophrenia, the functional and cognitive impacts of which make her at least partially incapable of managing her person. The Tribunal finds that Madelyn continues to be a person in need of a guardian, and accordingly, is a person for whom the Tribunal could make a further guardianship order.

Should the guardianship order continue, be revoked or be renewed?

The Issue of Forced Marriage

39. Janice’s application seeks that the guardianship order be varied to include a passport and travel function. Should such functions be included, Madelyn’s guardian would have authority to make decisions relating to whether or not Madelyn should be permitted to travel, and decisions about the issue of a passport and/or possession of Madelyn’s passport pending any decisions about her travel. The inclusion of these functions would not necessarily prevent Madelyn from travelling but would vest such decisions with her guardian (with the potential that her guardian may not approve requests for Madelyn to travel).

40. In the background to this matter are allegations that Madelyn has previously been removed from Australia to Libya with the intention of being married, and that the circumstances surrounding this may have been exploitative. These issues are traversed more fully in the Tribunal’s previous Reasons for Decision, and do not need to be expanded upon herein. The Tribunal notes that Madelyn has previously vehemently denied the accuracy of these allegations and maintained that position in the current Hearing.

41. In her letter dated 18 June 2025, the occupational therapist reports the following:

“I strongly support a travel function to be put in place for [Madelyn] urgently. She has reported to multiple service providers that her family plans to travel overseas and that Madelyn may be wedded overseas. [Madelyn’s] BSP ([Mr Z]) reported a discussion with [Madelyn’s] mother around the financial benefits of wedding her daughter. Therefore, the team is concerned that the family may want to wed [Madelyn] overseas for financial gain. At the age of 16 [Madelyn] was overseas in Lybia and her family also considered wedding her at that time. Considering the abusive dynamics of the family described above, [Madelyn] could be placed at significant risk if travelling with them overseas.

In my opinion, [Madelyn] does not have the cognitive capacity to consent to marriage. [Madelyn] is unable to differentiate between a safe relationship and attempts at manipulation. For example, in 2024 [Madelyn] began to engage in an online relationship and was pressured into engaging in unwanted online sexual activity. She needed the help of her support worker to cease this relationship. [Madelyn] could be at risk of marrying an individual who is seeking financial gain and a visa to live in Australia. From my observations, [Madelyn] cannot differentiate between safe and manipulative conversations.”

42. In his letter dated 18 June 2025, Mr Z reports the following:

“There is credible concern that [Madelyn’s] mother may be seeking to take her overseas for the purpose of arranging a marriage. [Madelyn] has expressed intent to marry someone she met only recently, under circumstances that suggest possible coercion and exploitation. It has been reported that the proposed partner may be seeking permanent residency in Australia and that this marriage may serve that purpose rather than being in Madelyn’s best interests.

Clinically, [Madelyn] does not demonstrate the capacity to provide informed and meaningful consent to marriage. She lacks the ability to foresee or comprehend the potential consequences of entering a legally binding relationship with someone who may not have genuine intentions or emotional commitment. She is unable to understand or evaluate how this could affect her emotionally, financially, or legally in the long term.”

43. The Tribunal outlined early in the Hearing that the basis of the concerns that Madelyn may be removed from the country to be married were not clearly articulated in the material provided to the Tribunal and invited Janice to address the Tribunal as to the circumstances that gave rise to such concerns.

44. Janice advised the Tribunal that Madelyn was reported to have had discussions with various support workers about a new relationship, and the possibility of getting married. She advised that Andrea had also had discussions with Mr Z about the issue. Following these concerns a multidisciplinary team meeting was held to discuss the concerns, resulting in the current application.

45. Mr Z informed the Tribunal about his discussions with Andrea. He told the Tribunal that it was not explicitly stated that Madelyn would be taken overseas to be married, however he was concerned about the discussion of marriage when Madelyn had only known the man for approximately four weeks (and who she has apparently never met in person). He confirmed that his understanding is that Madelyn may travel overseas to meet this man, however any marriage would take place in Australia (if it were to occur).

46. Andrea was provided an opportunity to comment on these concerns, however, her responses related to her request for the guardianship order to be revoked, and she did not provide any comments on the issue of forced marriage.

43. Ms Y expressed a view that Madelyn would be “more than capable” of making decisions about getting married, should she choose to do so. She asserted her belief that the comments about Madelyn getting married were a joke and was firmly of the belief that Madelyn would not be pressured into getting married. She told the Tribunal that Madelyn is very firm that she “won’t marry someone she doesn’t love”.

44. Ms X essentially shared the views expressed by Ms Y, suggesting that there had been a miscommunication about what had been discussed.

45. Madelyn was very guarded in her discussion about this issue. It was evident that she was extremely uncomfortable discussing the matter, and she made repeated requests to change the topic of discussion. It is unclear to the Tribunal whether Madelyn’s reluctance to discuss the issue was due to her desire for privacy, or whether it was a consequence of her attending the Hearing from the same location as Andrea. Despite Madelyn’s significant reluctance to discuss the matter, she ultimately engaged with the Tribunal’s questions about matters ancillary to the issue of forced marriage. Madelyn informed the Tribunal:

1. That she does not have a valid passport;

2. She has no current intentions to travel overseas; and,

3. She would like to travel overseas when she is more settled, perhaps in about two years, because being able to travel (and particularly to Libya) is of significant cultural importance to her.

50. Julianna noted that the concerns about the risk of Madelyn travelling overseas to be married are not new concerns, and that they have been in the background for many years. She told the Tribunal that from a cultural perspective the fact that Madelyn is unmarried may bring shame on Andrea and the family, and that although there may not be any concrete plans for Madelyn to marry, there is an expectation that that would be the next step for her.

51. Julianna told the Tribunal that she accepts Ms Y’s assessment that it is unlikely that Madelyn would be married without her consent. She described Madelyn as “headstrong” and agreed that Madelyn would not agree to being married unless she was in love with the person. Julianna opined, however, that she did not think that the comments about marriage were said in jest, but rather they are indicative of the cultural expectation that Madelyn should marry.

52. Julianna further opined that neither Andrea or Madelyn would currently have the financial ability or the wherewithal to fund a passport or international travel. She outlined that although there has been lots of talk about the issue, there is no evidence of any concrete steps to implement such arrangements.

53. Julianna outlined that there are factors weighing against the inclusion of these functions. In essence, Julianna outlined that in the absence of evidence of material risk of Madelyn being removed from the country and being forced to marry against her will, the inclusion of these functions may have a negative impact on Madelyn’s wellbeing. She has been making progress towards her own independence over a prolonged period of time, and the unnecessary inclusion of additional functions may cause her “to go backwards”.

54. Mr Z contended that if there are no plans for Madelyn to travel in any event, there is no detriment to her by including the additional functions in a further order. He requested that Madelyn explain how the inclusion of the functions would negatively impact her; however, the Tribunal did not allow the question.

55. The Tribunal finds that there is insufficient evidence to find that Madelyn is at risk of forced marriage, and in the absence of such evidence, the inclusion of passport and travel functions would be unnecessarily restrictive on Madelyn, and inconsistent with the Tribunal’s obligations under s 4 of the Act. In support of this finding the Tribunal notes the following:

1. Whilst it is accepted that there are cultural expectations for Madelyn to marry, and that Andrea may have strong views that Madelyn should be married, the Tribunal accepts that Madelyn is headstrong and would be extremely unlikely to marry someone on account of such expectations.

2. Madelyn has demonstrated consistently throughout the history of Tribunal proceedings a willingness and ability to assert herself against the views of her family (see, for example, [20] of the Reasons for Decision dated 12 July 2024, where Madelyn made her views clear that she did not want Andrea involved in decision making for her).

3. It appears unlikely that Madelyn or Andrea would have the means to travel in the foreseeable future.

4. Having regard to the long-held concerns that Madelyn may be forced to marry, these concerns have not crystalised despite there being no orders in place restricting Madelyn’s travel overseas.

5. Mr Z’s oral evidence was to the effect that if the marriage were to occur it would likely take place in Australia. The Tribunal is satisfied that there are appropriate protections under Australian law to prevent Madelyn being married in Australia without her consent, and to this end the inclusion of a travel and passport function would not prevent a potential husband travelling to Australia for the purpose of marrying Madelyn here.

6. Whilst the imposition of the additional functions may have no practical impact on Madelyn if she does not intend to travel in any event, the inclusion of these functions contrary to Madelyn’s express wishes has the potential to negatively impact her from a psychological wellbeing perspective.

56. In these circumstances the Tribunal decided that the guardianship order should not be varied to include the functions of travel and accommodation.

57. The Tribunal notes that this decision does not prevent a further application being made to the Tribunal if evidence arises that there is a real and material risk of Madelyn being removed from the country for the purpose of participating in a forced marriage.

58. To the extent that Madelyn may be at risk of forced marriage and was unable or unwilling to share her concerns during the Hearing, the Tribunal notes that there are resources available to assist with safety planning around forced marriage, including information produced by My Blue Sky [3] . Assistance may be sought from My Blue Sky during office hours by telephone [phone]) or SMS (0481 070 844). Assistance can also be sought from the Australian Federal Police on 131 237.

    3.

The Existing Guardianship Order

59. There was limited evidence available to the Tribunal with respect to decisions made under the existing functions under the guardianship order made on 12 July 2024.

60. The Tribunal has had regard to, and adopts herein, the Tribunal’s Reasons for Decision with respect to the functions included in the guardianship order made on 12 July 2024, and in particular paras [44] – [78] of those Reasons for Decision.

61. With respect to Madelyn’s accommodation, the Tribunal was informed that since the making of the previous order Madelyn had transitioned to her purpose-built accommodation, however, has since left this accommodation and returned to live with Andrea. The basis for Madelyn’s decision to leave this accommodation was reported difficulties with one of Madelyn’s neighbours, though the factual basis for these difficulties was in dispute at Hearing. It was asserted, and the Tribunal accepts, having regard to the Tribunal’s previous Reasons for Decision, that Madelyn’s accommodation with Andrea is unlikely to be a suitable long-term arrangement for Madelyn, and that there are reasonably foreseeable decisions to be made on Madelyn’s behalf regarding her accommodation.

62. With respect to the services available to Madelyn, the Tribunal’s previous Reasons for Decision identify particular difficulties with respect to Andrea’s interference with service delivery for Madelyn, and historically decisions being made about the provision of NDIS services which may not have been aligned with Madelyn’s interests. At Hearing it was asserted that Madelyn would benefit from consistency of service provision, and that such consistency would be jeopardized if the service function were to be lapsed. The Tribunal was informed that Madelyn’s current supports are the “most stable supports in place” and such stability is attributable to the role of the Public Guardian in ensuring consistency of service delivery.

63. Janice identified that Andrea has consistently attempted to cancel services in place for Madelyn and/or change to other service providers. Janice identified concerns that Andrea still does not understand that the services available to Madelyn under her NDIS Plan are for Madelyn’s benefit, and not for her own benefit.

64. In response to these concerns, Madelyn asserted that Andrea does now understand these restrictions and further asserted that Andrea has not attempted to make changes to Madelyn’s services for a long time.

65. In reply to Madelyn’s assertions, Janice informed the Tribunal that she had been contacted by Andrea the previous week insisting that services be changed. Unprompted by the Tribunal, Andrea made comments (apparently directed towards Janice) to the effect of “It is my plan. It is not your plan, it is my plan.” Those comments were made using a raised voice and an argumentative tone.

66. The Tribunal accepts the assertions that the continuation of a services function is necessary to ensure that Madelyn receives consistent supports from appropriate services, and that less formal arrangements would not appropriately safeguard Madelyn’s interests.

67. It appears from the Tribunal’s previous Reasons for Decision that the health care function was included to permit the exchange of health information and to ensure that Madelyn is supported to access appropriate health care services. This extends to any necessary allied health supports. The continued inclusion of this function will assist the Public Guardian to access necessary health information to inform ongoing decisions and would assist in supporting Madelyn should she wish to explore the further assessments referred to earlier in these Reasons for Decision.

68. The access function was previously allocated to ensure that Madelyn is appropriately supported to manage the tumultuous relationship she has with family members, and in particular, Andrea, noting of course that the nature of these relationships appears to fluctuate. In the absence of clear evidence regarding the use of this function during the term of the current order, and having regard to the prior history reported in the Tribunal’s Reasons for Decision around the need for the inclusion of this function, the Tribunal considered that this function should continue under a further order until such times as a more thorough review of its utility can be undertaken.

69. The Tribunal notes that Madelyn and Andrea each hold strong views in opposition to the guardianship order continuing. Madelyn asserted throughout the Hearing that she “deserves a normal life” and “I just want my peace”, and other similar sentiments.

70. The Tribunal acknowledges Madelyn’s significant progress whilst under guardianship. Mr Z identified that last year there were active discussions about recommending that the order be revoked in recognition of Madelyn’s significant progress towards independence. At Hearing, Mr Z did not support the order being revoked at this point in time. He identified that Madelyn is currently in a position of considerable instability, arising from the changes to her accommodation and the fact that she is no longer being medicated for her schizophrenia.

71. Aside from Madelyn and Andrea, none of the participants in the Hearing supported the order being revoked at this point in time, with a common theme emerging that to do so at this point would jeopardise the progress made by Madelyn to date.

72. Julianna identified from her discussions with Madelyn that Madelyn does not believe that the Public Guardian has made any negative decisions on her behalf, however their continued involvement limits Madelyn’s opportunities to demonstrate her independence.

73. Whilst the Tribunal acknowledges Madelyn’s strong desire for the guardianship order to be revoked, the Tribunal shares the concerns identified by the various professionals working with Madelyn that to do so at this point in time could significantly jeopardise Madelyn’s progress to date.

74. The Public Guardian are obligated to act in a manner which promotes the principles outlined in s 4 of the Act. In doing so, there is scope for Madelyn to work collaboratively with the Public Guardian regarding decision making, and accordingly Madelyn may have the opportunity to demonstrate her independence notwithstanding the continuation of the existing order.

75. The Tribunal has had regard to Madelyn’s existing family relationships. Having regard to Madelyn’s complex family dynamics, the Tribunal is satisfied that the continuation of the existing order will promote Madelyn’s existing relationships in a safe and controlled manner.

76. The Tribunal accepts Madelyn’s assertions that the inclusion of a travel and passport function would impact her ability to maintain her cultural and linguistic environments. Having determined, however, that such functions should not be included in the order at this point in time, there is no evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that the continuation of the guardianship order in its existing terms would impact Madelyn’s cultural and linguistic environment.

77. There were no proposals advanced at Hearing for a private guardian to be appointed as Madelyn’s guardian, and accordingly the Tribunal confirmed the appointment of the Public Guardian. For completeness, however, the Tribunal notes that Andrea has previously been found by the Tribunal not to be a suitable person to be appointed as Madelyn’s guardian, and there was no evidence presented to the Tribunal at Hearing that would disturb the Tribunal’s previous findings on this issue.

78. The Tribunal notes that the existing order is to continue until July 2026. The Tribunal is satisfied that the length of the order should remain unchanged to provide an appropriate opportunity for Madelyn to demonstrate stability in her personal circumstances, and if she so chooses, to obtain evidence in support of her assertions that she is not a person in need of a guardian.

79. In all of the circumstances the Tribunal was satisfied that there should be no change to the terms of the existing guardianship order. Accordingly, the Tribunal reviewed and confirmed the guardianship order made on 12 July 2024.

**********

Endnotes

I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales.

Registrar

Decision last updated: 29 August 2025