MJW (Review Guardianship)
[2019] TASGAB 1
•4 January 2019
GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION BOARD
HOBART
MJW (Review Guardianship) [2019] TASGAB 1
STATEMENT OF REASONS
Justin Otlowski (Chair)
Lindi Wall (Member)
Angela McKenzie (Member)
Hearing 4 January 2019
Application to review single member decision of the Board - application and subject matter did not raise any subsequent change to any material fact - application rejected
Guardianship and Administration Act, 211(14) and (15)
On Friday 4 January 2019 a division of the Board, comprising three members as required by section 11(15) of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1995 (the Act), convened to consider and determine an Application to Review a single member decision of the Board pursuant to section 11(14) of the Act (‘the Application’).
The Application was made by LHC, a son of MJW (the represented person).
The Application concerned a review of a decision to reject an Application to Review a Guardianship Order made by a single member Board.
On or about 3 December 2018 the President sitting as a single member Board determined on the material before it that:
‘[T]he application and subject matter has already been dealt with by the Board and there has been no subsequent change to any material fact. Therefore, my decision is not to allow the Review.’
Background
On 2 September 2016 a one-member division of the Board heard an Application for a Guardianship Order for the represented person. The application was filed by BNC, aged care facility manager of the facility where the represented person lived.
As a result of the hearing, the Board was satisfied the represented person was a person with a disability, was unable because of her disability to make reasonable judgements in respect of her personal circumstances and was in need of a Guardian.
The Board determined that the Public Guardian be appointed as the represented person’s Guardian, and the powers and duties of the Guardian were limited to decisions concerning the represented person’s health care and to refuse or withdraw consent to any treatment.
Following the hearing LHC requested a Statement of Reasons in relation to the Board’s decision. A statement was provided. The statement addressed why the Board considered the Public Guardian was the appropriate person to be Guardian.
LHC then made an Application to Review the Guardianship Order (filed 9 November 2018), which was determined by the single member Board on 3 December 2018.
It is the determination of the 3 December 2018 that is the subject of the Application before the Board.
Consideration
The Application was considered on the hearing papers. The Board had the Application for a Guardianship Order including the Health Care Professional Report, the Statement of Reasons for the Order and the Application to Review the Guardianship Order with a Health Care Professional Report.
In paragraph 4 of the Application to Review LHC gives as the reasons for the review:
“The current guardian Kim Barker is not required and her presence adds just another layer of bureaucracy that tends to slow down approvals, adds to confusion and expenses and at the end of the day delays healthcare”. The Board notes that these reasons do not address any of the facts referred to in the Statement of Reasons that led to the Board appointing the Public Guardian. The Board also notes that the Health Care Professional Report contains the comment “LHC, would like to resume care of his mother”. This comment shows a lack of understanding of the role of a Guardian. There is no reason why LHC cannot be involved in caring for his mother and he does not need to be her Guardian to do this.
Decision
Having considered all the documents before it, the Board was satisfied and determined that the subject matter raised in the Application had already been dealt with by the original Board, and that there had not been any subsequent change to any material fact pursuant to s11(13)(b).
The Application is rejected.
This determination of the Board exhausts the review procedures available under section 11 of the Act.
0
0
0