MF (No2) (Administration)

[2007] TASGAB 11

GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION BOARD
Hobart

Miss MF review of administration order of Board’s own motion

Neutral Citation:  MF (No2) (Administration) [2007] TASGAB 11

REASONS FOR DECISION

Kereth West (Board Member)

Decision: 26 October 2007

Administration – review of Board’s own motion – reassessment of need for order – supported accommodation facility concerned that having represented person’s mother as administrator limited her freedom of decision and action – no need for a guardian
Guardianship and Administration Act 1995 – ss 20, 51, 54, 67

1. This is a review of review of an administration order made on 19 October 2006 for Miss MF.  The Order appointed Mrs FC as Miss MF’s Administrator on 19 October 2006 and was granted for 3 years but was to be reviewed after 12 months.

1. Miss MF is a 24 year old woman who lives in Hobart in supported group home accommodation supported by GHA a residential facility funded by Disability Services.

1. In the Reasons for Decisions (see Appendix A), the Board concluded that:

“…the Board was satisfied that it is in Miss MF’s best interests to take some measures to resolve a conflict brewing between Miss MF’s family members and GHA staff.  The Board perceived that to formalise Mrs FC’s informal decision-making role by appointment as administrator for a short period would encourage group home staff and Mrs FC to reach a practical, respectful and mutual understanding about their shared influences over Miss MF’s decision- making in all aspects of her life.

For that reason the Board appointed Mrs FC as administrator for Miss MF for three years, but ordered a review after one year of operation.  That review is intended to assess whether the underlying conflicts have resolved to such an extent that the need for an administrator has been resolved also.”

1. The review hearing was convened on 26 October 2007.  A list of documents considered by the Board is attached at Appendix B.  Sections of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1995 relevant to this decision are appended at Appendix C.

1. The following people attended the hearing:

   Miss MF– Represented Person
     Mrs FC – Administrator, Miss MF’s Mother
     Mr JF – Miss MF’s Father

   Mrs EX  - Manager, GHA

   Mr CO, Chairman, GHA
     Ms SL, Support Worker GHA
     Anne Perks, Staff Member GAB

2. Disability and Incapacity – Section 51(1) (a) and (b) and 20 (1) (a) and (b). As the hearing was a 12 month review of a 3 year order, a current Health Care Professional Report was not sought.  No evidence was tendered during the hearing to indicate that there has been any change to Miss MF’s capacity to make reasonable judgements about matters relating to her estate.  The Board was satisfied that the threshold criteria for disability and incapacity were met.

3. Need – Section 51 (1) (c) and 20 (1) (c) Prior to the hearing Mrs EX, Manager, GHA submitted a letter detailing the Organisation’s opinion that the Administration order was not in Miss MF’s best interest and was not the least restrictive alternative for her.  Mrs EX suggested that the Order restricted Miss MF’s ability to make independent financial decisions within her capabilities and limited her opportunities to develop budgetary and money management skills.  Mrs EX contended that Miss MF’s lack of involvement in her finances also impacted on her overall involvement with and access to the community.

1. Mrs EX’ letter specified that Miss MF is required to ask her mother for all money and provide information on all expenditure which she felt resulted in Miss MF having no independence, privacy or opportunity to purchase things of her own.  Mrs EX identified a number of issues including those associated with Miss MF not buying her own clothes or being able to make decisions regarding hair cuts.

1. Mrs FC was given the opportunity to respond to Mrs EX’s letter prior to the hearing.  In response, Mrs FC felt that her ability to work with GHA had improved and that she was surprised that her visits had been documented.  Mrs FC detailed the financial arrangements she has in place for Miss MF but did not address the issues of choice and maximising Miss MF’s independence and overall potential that were raised by GHA.

1. During the hearing, GHA reiterated their concerns that the administration order was restricting Miss MF’s life choices and limiting her personal and community development.  They highlighted issues associated with restrictions on developing her own budget, making choices on purchases and being able to express her individuality through choosing clothes and hairstyles.

1. With respect to hair, Mrs FC described an historical pattern whereby she and Miss MF always have their hair cut together every 5 weeks and that Miss MF’s hair is difficult to cut and style appropriately and her current hairdresser was good.  With respect to clothes etc Mrs FC stated during the hearing that she knows Miss MF best and suggested that a purchase of socks that were too large indicated that without her involvement Miss MF’s clothing would not be appropriate in either style or fit.

1. Mrs FC expressed concern that were she not administrator that Miss MF’s family life, particularly during holidays and weekends would be curtailed by the unavailability of money to undertake planned activities.  Mrs FC was not reassured by GHA’s guarantee that those activities would be planned for in Miss MF’s budget.

1. Guardianship Issues:  The papers submitted for the review and several comments made during the hearing raised issues concerning the provision of health care for Miss MF.  The Board was of the opinion they were not problems associated with decision making but issues about the implementation of the subsequent intervention. 

1. Represented person’s wishes:  Miss MF stated that she was happy for her mother to continue to manage her finances.

1. Best Interests:  The Board was of the opinion that all parties held Miss MF’s best interests as paramount but had fundamental differences in their perceptions of the concept.  In October 2006, the Board recognised that conflict between Mrs FC and GHA was not in Miss MF’s best interests and thus made the administration order in an attempt to facilitate the development of the relationship.  It is clear that the first 12 months has not achieved the intention to move towards removing the need for an administration order and similarly not resulted in providing Miss MF with increased opportunity for personal growth and expression.  The perception of an improved relationship appears to be the consequence of GHA’s compliance with the Order rather than any active improvement in the working relationship.

1. Appropriateness of Administrator:  The records and documentation provided to the Board indicate that Mrs FC has performed the role of maintaining financial records well and is capable of continuing the role.

Conclusion

The administration order was made in October 2006 with the aim of facilitating the development of the relationship between Miss MF’s family and her support organisation with an intention to progress toward making the administration order obsolete.  It is clear that there has been little progression towards this end, and that while the Administrator has undertaken the role sincerely, the manner in which the order has been implemented appears to be restrictive of Miss MF’s personal and community growth.   The Board was of the opinion that the level of distrust between Mrs FC and GHA was still at a level that the revoking of the order would rekindle the conflict and would not at this time be in Miss MF’s best interests.  The Board determined that continuing the order but placing directives on the Administrator such that she would have formal oversight of Miss MF’s finances whilst GHA worked to maximise Miss MF’s choices and monetary skills may progress this situation more effectively.

THE BOARD ORDERS

1. That Mrs FC continue as the represented person’s administrator.

2. That the powers and duties of the administrator be those conferred by Division 4 of Part 7 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1995.

3. That the administrator is directed to redirect the represented persons income (ie. Pension, mobility allowance and wages) to an account in the represented person’s name with the staff of GHA (the organisation) as co-signatories in accordance with the organisation’s policies.

4. That the organisation develop a fortnightly budget in consultation with the represented person to be approved by the administrator.

5. That the order be reviewed at the expiration of 6 months.

Kereth West   

CHAIR