MEN – Application by the Public Trustee for a review of Administration Order, Application by the Public Guardian for a Review of Guardianship Order

In the matter of MEN, the Public Trustee applied for a review of the administration order and the Public Guardian applied for a review of the guardianship order. Both orders were made on 21 September 2006. MEN, the represented person, had an intellectual disability and was incapable of making reasonable decisions in relation to her person and circumstances as well as her finances. The court was required to decide whether MEN was in need of an administrator and a guardian, and if the Public Guardian was the appropriate guardian.

The court found that MEN remained in need of an administrator as the Public Trustee had done all that would be expected of an administrator to protect her money and make it available if there should be an occasion where funds were requested. However, concerns remained that her money was not being spent in ways that benefited her. The court was also satisfied that the Public Trustee remained the appropriate administrator. As for the guardianship order, the court found that MEN remained in need of a guardian to ensure that she did not return to the environment from which she came and to consent to ongoing health care issues. The represented person's family continued to assert their role as primary carers and to dominate all aspects of her care and socialisation. The need for a guardian remained global, and the Board believed that there was a need for section 28 powers to ensure compliance with the guardian's decisions.

The court was not satisfied that the Public Guardian had acted in the best interests of the represented person during the majority of this order, particularly with regard to the obligations in section 27(2)(c), (d), and (e). However, the Public Guardian remained the guardian of 'last resort' and, as no other guardian had been proposed, the Public Guardian was the appropriate guardian. The Board added the section 28 powers into the order and gave an extra direction to ensure that the represented person did not return home to live with family members without the express approval of the Board.

The court ordered that the Public Trustee continue as the represented person's administrator and that the powers and duties of the administrator be those conferred by Division 4 of Part 7 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1995. The court also ordered that the Public Guardian continue as the represented person's guardian, that the powers and duties of the guardian be those conferred by Division 3 of Part 4 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1995, and that the guardian may instruct any officer of Tasmanian Police or of the Tasmanian Ambulance Service or any employee, agent or servant of the Crown employed in the Department of Health and Human Services to take action to ensure that the represented person complies with the guardian's decisions to keep her at that place of residence and return her to that place of residence should she leave it. The order remained in effect to 16 September 2012. Furthermore, the guardian was directed not to consent to the represented person returning to live with members of the N family without the express approval of the Board.