MM
[2016] WASAT 62
•20 MAY 2016
MM [2016] WASAT 62
| STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL | Citation No: | [2016] WASAT 62 | |
| GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1990 (WA) | |||
| Case No: | GAA:894/2016 | 26 FEBRUARY AND 28 APRIL 2016 | |
| Coram: | MR J MANSVELD (SENIOR MEMBER) | 20/05/16 | |
| 17 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Guardian and administrator appointed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | MM |
Catchwords: | Guardianship and administration Capacity Ability to make reasonable judgments Cerebral palsy Intellectual disability Allegations of neglect and abuse made by represented person Claims that the allegations are fabrications Statements and allegations made by represented person should not be dismissed as baseless Allegations are evidence of represented person's serious concerns regarding his circumstances about which he is powerless to do anything Guardian to be appointed to deal with problems faced by represented person and to make decisions in his best interests Administrator appointed Guardian and administrator need to be compatible |
Legislation: | Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), s 3, s 4, s 43, s 44, s 45, s 64, s 68, s 68(3)(a), s 69, s 90, s 110ZD |
Case References: | Nil |
Summary | MM is a 31yearold man with significant disabilities.,He had been living with his mother, KM, and his stepfather, BM, in a home modified for his needs.,In February 2016, applications for guardianship and administration orders were made in respect of MM by the Disability Services Commission. The applicant reported allegations of neglect and abuse in the home.,Over a period of about 12 months, MM had reported to care and support staff and to his general practitioner that he was frightened of BM, that he had been hit by BM, and that he wanted to leave home.,MM would typically retract the allegations at a later time.,The allegations were disputed by KM and BM who said that MM was in the habit of fabricating events when he could not get his own way. ,The applications were heard urgently on 26 February 2016 and the Tribunal appointed the Public Advocate as MM's guardian to make decisions about his temporary accommodation and with whom he should have contact. The order was set for review in two months. The application for an administration order was adjourned.,On 28 April 2016, the Tribunal heard the review of the guardianship order and the adjourned administration application.,The Tribunal was satisfied that MM had an intellectual disability which impaired his capacity to make reasonable judgments concerning his personal and financial affairs. He was unable to develop an informed position about major personal matters, such as his future accommodation, because his cognitive deficits did not allow him to fully understand the consequences of a decision that he would like to make.,The Tribunal found that the intellectual disability was at times masked by MM's strong views on matters that were important to him.,There was no suggestion that MM was unaware of his environment, and there was no evidence to indicate that he was unable to give an account of how the environment impacted on him despite his expressive difficulties. He was able to make known his interpretation of events in which he was a participant.,The Tribunal did not accept that when MM made statements or allegations, they should simply be dismissed as baseless. At the very least, they were evidence of MM's serious concerns regarding his circumstances from time to time about which he was otherwise powerless to do anything.,The fact that MM later retracted the allegations was not inconsistent with the Tribunal's findings. ,The strength of the bond between MM and KM could not be underestimated. KM wanted MM to live with her and he understandably responded to his mother's wishes. In addition, he was very worried about her because of her illness and he could only ease his anxiety if he saw her. However, this did not alter the fact that at times MM felt trapped in his environment.,The Tribunal found that the consequence was that the family minimised the need of MM to have a voice and to be able to act on that voice when a situation became untenable for him.,In the circumstances of MM's disabilities and his living situation, the Tribunal was satisfied only an appointed guardian and an appointed administrator could effectively deal with the problems that he faced, and make decisions in his best interests.,The Tribunal appointed the Public Advocate as MM's limited guardian and the Public Trustee as his plenary administrator with a review of the orders in two years. |
JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ACT : GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1990 (WA) CITATION : MM [2016] WASAT 62 MEMBER : MR J MANSVELD (SENIOR MEMBER) HEARD : 26 FEBRUARY AND 28 APRIL 2016 DELIVERED : 20 MAY 2016 FILE NO/S : GAA 894 of 2016
- GAA 1076 of 2016
- Represented Person
Catchwords:
Guardianship and administration Capacity Ability to make reasonable judgments Cerebral palsy Intellectual disability Allegations of neglect and abuse made by represented person Claims that the allegations are fabrications Statements and allegations made by represented person should not be dismissed as baseless Allegations are evidence of represented person's serious concerns regarding his circumstances about which he is powerless to do anything Guardian to be appointed to deal with problems faced by represented person and to make decisions in his best interests Administrator appointed Guardian and administrator need to be compatible
Legislation:
Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), s 3, s 4, s 43, s 44, s 45, s 64, s 68, s 68(3)(a), s 69, s 90, s 110ZD
Result:
Guardian and administrator appointed
Summary of Tribunal's decision:
MM is a 31yearold man with significant disabilities.
He had been living with his mother, KM, and his stepfather, BM, in a home modified for his needs.
In February 2016, applications for guardianship and administration orders were made in respect of MM by the Disability Services Commission. The applicant reported allegations of neglect and abuse in the home.
Over a period of about 12 months, MM had reported to care and support staff and to his general practitioner that he was frightened of BM, that he had been hit by BM, and that he wanted to leave home.
MM would typically retract the allegations at a later time.
The allegations were disputed by KM and BM who said that MM was in the habit of fabricating events when he could not get his own way.
The applications were heard urgently on 26 February 2016 and the Tribunal appointed the Public Advocate as MM's guardian to make decisions about his temporary accommodation and with whom he should have contact. The order was set for review in two months. The application for an administration order was adjourned.
On 28 April 2016, the Tribunal heard the review of the guardianship order and the adjourned administration application.
The Tribunal was satisfied that MM had an intellectual disability which impaired his capacity to make reasonable judgments concerning his personal and financial affairs. He was unable to develop an informed position about major personal matters, such as his future accommodation, because his cognitive deficits did not allow him to fully understand the consequences of a decision that he would like to make.
The Tribunal found that the intellectual disability was at times masked by MM's strong views on matters that were important to him.
There was no suggestion that MM was unaware of his environment, and there was no evidence to indicate that he was unable to give an account of how the environment impacted on him despite his expressive difficulties. He was able to make known his interpretation of events in which he was a participant.
The Tribunal did not accept that when MM made statements or allegations, they should simply be dismissed as baseless. At the very least, they were evidence of MM's serious concerns regarding his circumstances from time to time about which he was otherwise powerless to do anything.
The fact that MM later retracted the allegations was not inconsistent with the Tribunal's findings.
The strength of the bond between MM and KM could not be underestimated. KM wanted MM to live with her and he understandably responded to his mother's wishes. In addition, he was very worried about her because of her illness and he could only ease his anxiety if he saw her. However, this did not alter the fact that at times MM felt trapped in his environment.
The Tribunal found that the consequence was that the family minimised the need of MM to have a voice and to be able to act on that voice when a situation became untenable for him.
In the circumstances of MM's disabilities and his living situation, the Tribunal was satisfied only an appointed guardian and an appointed administrator could effectively deal with the problems that he faced, and make decisions in his best interests.
The Tribunal appointed the Public Advocate as MM's limited guardian and the Public Trustee as his plenary administrator with a review of the orders in two years.
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Represented Person : N/A
Solicitors:
Represented Person : N/A
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
Nil
Introduction
1 The represented person (MM) is a 31-year-old man with significant disabilities.
2 He has been living with his mother, KM, and his stepfather, BM, in a home modified for his needs.
3 On 24 February 2016, applications for guardianship and administration orders were made in respect to MM by the Disability Services Commission (DSC or applicant).
4 The applications were made pursuant to the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) (GA Act). The applicant reported allegations of neglect and abuse in the home.
5 KM has a serious illness and when she receives treatment, she may be away from the home for a period. At these times, BM assumes the primary carer role.
6 MM is in receipt of support services, both in the home and for community access.
7 Because of the nature of the allegations, the applications were heard on an expedited basis on 24 February 2016.
8 At the time of the hearing, MM was in respite care which had been approved by KM.
9 The Tribunal appointed the Public Advocate as MM's limited guardian for two months to decide his temporary accommodation and to decide with whom he should have contact from time to time.
10 The matter was set for a final hearing on 28 April 2016.
11 Present at the hearing were:
• MM;
• KM;
• BM;
• representatives from DSC;
• representatives from the service providers, Care Options and SMP;
• representatives from Rocky Bay, the respite facility;
• AC and JH (MM's brother and sister);
• the delegated guardian (guardian); and
• a senior investigator from the Office of the Public Advocate.
12 MM's general practitioner (Dr RS) gave oral evidence at the hearing on 24 February 2016.
13 The decision was reserved.
14 I have decided to reappoint the Public Advocate as MM's limited guardian and appoint the Public Trustee as his plenary administrator.
15 My reasons follow.
The relevant legislation
16 The primary concern of the Tribunal is the best interests of MM: s 4(2) of the GA Act.
17 MM 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.
18 Under s 43 of the GA Act, the Tribunal cannot consider appointing a guardian for MM 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 about 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.
19 Under s 64 of the GA Act, the Tribunal cannot consider appointing an administrator of the estate of MM unless it is satisfied on the evidence that by reason of a mental disability, MM is unable to make reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to all or any part of his estate.
20 '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.
21 If a finding of incapacity is made in respect to MM, the Tribunal must further determine whether he is in need of guardianship and administration orders. If the needs of MM 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.
22 If the Tribunal decides that MM 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 and s 69 of the GA Act.
23 As to the authority given to a guardian, the GA Act states that if a limited order is sufficient to meet the needs of MM 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 MM: s 4(5) and s 4(6) of the GA Act.
24 In considering the applications, the Tribunal shall, as far as possible, seek to ascertain the views and wishes of MM as expressed, in whatever manner, at the time, or as gathered from MM's previous actions: s 4(7) of the GA Act.
25 Under s 90 of the GA Act, the Tribunal can confirm the existing guardianship order, amend the order, revoke the order, or revoke the order and substitute another order for it.
Assessments and reports concerning MM's capacity
26 The Tribunal was provided with a report from Dr RS and a report from Dr PW, a clinical and forensic psychologist who was asked by DSC to assess MM.
27 The reports are discussed below.
Evidence and submissions
28 The applicant states that whilst living with his mother, KM, and his stepfather, BM, MM is in receipt of a number of services: he attends a community access program five times a week with the agency, SMP; he receives personal care support three evenings a week and weekly domestic assistance from Care Options; and he has occasional respite at Rocky Bay.
29 The family receives individualised funding through DSC to purchase extra personal care for MM to a total of seven hours per week. That funding is managed by KM. Recently an application was made to increase the hours to 12 hours a week as extra support during KM's treatment.
30 DSC contends that it is unsafe for MM to continue living with KM and BM. The contention arises from allegations of neglect and abuse of MM by BM.
31 DSC states that KM is the primary carer of MM; however, she has a serious illness which requires treatment in hospital. At those times, BM has taken on the role of primary carer.
32 DSC refers to an incident that was reported when visiting MM at his home on 15 February 2016 and which prompted the respite facility to take MM to the emergency department of Fiona Stanley Hospital on 20 February 2016.
33 The incident is detailed in a DSC document People at Risk Response Plan (DSC document) prepared by a DSC occupational therapist who was present on 15 February 2016 and who attended the Tribunal hearings.
34 What the DSC document states is that personal care staff found MM with significant bruising on his left and right anterior superior iliac spine; significant skin breakdown in his upper thigh, perineum and around his scrotum; a small number of pressure injuries on his ankle and his feet; and a severe graze on the underside of his chin and two smaller grazes around his lips.
35 In the discharge summary of Fiona Stanley Hospital on 20 February 2016 (discharge summary), the injuries are described as 'multiple bruises, grazes and possible pressure sores'.
36 DSC states that MM told support staff he had a bowel accident at home in the evening recently and required changing. BM was reported to have become very angry with MM soiling himself and this resulted in him being left in his wheelchair overnight with his pelvic belt on tight.
37 The discharge summary states that MM alleged that some of his injuries were inflicted by BM hitting him and that it had been a longstanding problem but that he had not told anyone in the past.
38 A report from SMP states that on 24 March 2015, MM told the Community Services Manager (who attended the Tribunal hearing on 28 April 2016) that BM had not allowed him to watch TV since 16 March 2015 and that his weekend activities had been stopped. MM is reported to have said that he wanted to move out of home.
39 In the SMP report, the Community Services Manager notes that BM told her that MM was allowed to watch TV but not in his room because he stayed up too late. MM was said to have been deprived of his weekend activities because BM said that 'he tells lies all the time'.
40 In a letter from Dr RS dated 26 February 2016, he states that he attended to MM on that day and that MM told him that he is scared of BM. Dr RS states that 'it seems' that MM and BM had an argument when KM was in hospital and that BM hit MM on the abdomen. Dr RS states that BM does sometimes raise his voice but that the hit 'is the only instance of physical abuse'. Dr RS assessed the risk of physical abuse from BM as 'very low' but recommended that MM not be left in BM's care when KM is in hospital.
41 Dr RS concludes in his letter that in his opinion, KM has done a 'great job' looking after MM and that there is no possibility she has ever abused him.
42 BM disputes the allegations made by DSC and the support agencies. He says that MM was the male authority in the household prior to the commencement of his relationship with KM. BM states that since then, there have been times when he and MM have clashed about who should have the final say.
43 BM states that when MM cannot get his own way, he will become demanding, which can ultimately lead him to make statements to others about wanting to move out of home. BM submits that statements made by MM are fabrications, including those concerning him hitting MM.
44 BM disputes that the pelvic belt has been applied too tightly on MM - in fact, the belt is often applied too loosely by carers, resulting in MM falling forward and experiencing back pain.
45 BM states that at the time of the incident in February 2016 reported by DSC, KM was in hospital. MM had soiled himself and had 'thrown a paddy'. It was a very hot day. BM contends that the skin injuries suffered by MM were caused by his movements in the wheelchair and not by the pelvic belt being too tight.
46 KM states that she wants MM to be returned home (she had agreed to MM being placed in respite on 17 February 2016 and the guardian confirmed that decision after 26 February 2016).
47 KM states that MM can be very demanding and that BM usually gives in to those demands. She does not believe that BM has ever hit MM.
48 KM states that MM does make up things and that she has had experience of this when MM has said that she has hit him.
49 KM states that MM is engaged to be married and it is planned that he and his partner live with her and BM for some years before going into independent (but supported) accommodation.
50 KM submits that her daughter, JH, should be appointed MM's guardian. She trusts JH and believes that MM would respect any decision made by her.
51 KM states that MM receives the disability support pension. She is his nominee for Centrelink purposes and has access to his funds by way of an ATM card. She submits that there is no need for the appointment of an administrator but that if one was appointed it should be JH.
52 JH states that she sees MM a couple of times a week and has a good sibling relationship with him. She says that MM has told her BM has not hit him and that MM will lie because he does not like being told what to do.
53 JH is of the view that MM should be returned home but not live there full-time. She says planning should begin on MM's future independence.
54 JH proposes that she be appointed guardian for MM jointly with her brother, AC.
55 AC says that he has not discussed the joint appointment with KM. He agrees with JH that MM should return home on a part-time basis.
56 AC states that MM has a history of making up stories when he does not get his own way. AC states that he has been subject to this aspect of MM's behaviour in the past.
57 The guardian states that it was decided that MM remain in respite care in the course of the Tribunal proceedings. The guardian consented to daily contact between MM and KM and weekly supervised contact which would include BM.
58 The guardian states that MM expresses a wish to return to live with KM and BM; however, the guardian submits this would place MM at unacceptable risk.
59 The senior investigator from the Office of the Public Advocate supports the concerns raised by DSC and submits that MM's family has minimised the seriousness of the allegations. The senior investigator questions the ability of JH and AC to make the difficult decisions for MM in the current circumstances and proposes the reappointment of the Public Advocate.
The decision of the Tribunal
60 By the making of the guardianship order on 26 February 2016, I made a finding pursuant to s 43(1)(b) of the GA Act regarding MM's capacity.
61 Further evidence was made available to the Tribunal subsequent to the hearing of 26 February 2016 - in particular, the assessment and report of Dr PW, clinical psychologist. This was in addition to the report already with the Tribunal from Dr RS and his oral evidence.
62 In light of the new information, a discussion of MM's capacity is warranted.
63 There is some difference in the assessments of Dr RS and Dr PW.
64 There is no dispute that MM has significant cerebral palsy and that he has considerable problems with expressive language (the ability to talk).
65 Because of his physical disabilities, MM is unable to write.
66 Dr RS states that assessing MM's 'mental acuity' is difficult due to his problems with speech; 'however[,] he expresses thoughts [and] ideas showing a reasonable level of functioning' (report dated 25 February 2016). Dr RS is not aware of any formal testing of MM's intellectual capacity.
67 Dr PW agrees that MM is able to express his views, and opines that whilst MM's ability to socialise is one of his relative strengths, it should be seen as equivalent to an upper pre-primary child (MM is 31 years of age).
68 In addition, Dr PW is of the view that although MM is able to express his views, he is not capable of offering an opinion about what is best for him because he has a severe impairment in cognition and adaptive functioning, the latter in the areas of communication, daily living skills, socialisation and motor skills.
69 Dr PW states that MM is able to understand discussions as long as they are simple and clear.
70 Dr RS places an emphasis on MM's mother, KM, being able to communicate and explain things, and when that happens, MM is said to be able to consent to his medical treatment.
71 However, Dr RS goes on to state that because of MM's 'present situation', he is incapable of deciding his living circumstances, but when removed from that situation, he should be capable.
72 It is inherent in the assessments of both Dr RS and Dr PW, and I accept, that MM is incapable of looking after his own health and safety and is in need of oversight and care in the interests of his own health and safety. MM is wheelchair-bound and is totally dependent on others for his activities of daily living. He is unable to remove himself from difficult situations.
73 Whilst I should have some regard to the fact that Dr RS has known MM for many years and that Dr PW conducted a one-off capacity assessment, I am not persuaded by Dr RS's view that MM's capacity depends on where he is living or on the ability of KM to communicate his views and wishes.
74 I prefer the opinion of Dr PW because, as a specialist practitioner, he gives, in my view, a more nuanced assessment of MM's capacity and it is consistent with evidence generally given in the proceeding.
75 I am satisfied that MM has an intellectual disability which impairs his capacity to make reasonable judgments concerning his personal and financial affairs. He is unable to develop an informed position about major personal matters, such as his future accommodation, because his cognitive deficits do not allow him to fully understand the consequences of a decision that he would like to make.
76 In my view, the intellectual disability is at times masked by MM's strong views on matters that are important to him.
77 There is no suggestion that MM is unaware of his environment and there is no evidence to indicate that he is unable to give an account of how the environment impacts on him, despite his expressive difficulties. He is able to make known his interpretation of events in which he is a participant.
78 The applications before the Tribunal are largely concerned about the safety of MM. The allegation by DSC is that MM has been subject to neglect and possible abuse in the course of his care by his stepfather, BM. This is said to have occurred when KM, who is receiving treatment for a serious illness, has not been in the home.
79 The incident most referred to concerns the home visit by support workers on 15 February 2016 which prompted the respite facility to take MM to the emergency department at Fiona Stanley Hospital on 20 February 2016.
80 The allegations of neglect and abuse are strongly denied by BM and KM. What is not in dispute, and what has been consistent over the last 12 months or so, has been MM alleging to a number of people that he is frightened of BM, that on occasion he has been hit by BM, that he has been deprived of social activities, and that he wants to change his accommodation.
81 The evidence before the Tribunal shows that MM has made these allegations in March 2015 to the staff at SMP, and in February 2016 to Care Options staff, to emergency department staff at Fiona Stanley Hospital and to his general practitioner, Dr RS.
82 What is also not in dispute is that MM eventually retracts these statements and states that he wishes to continue to live with KM and BM.
83 According to BM, the genesis of the allegations made by MM is a tension that exists between him and MM as to who is 'head of the house'. The explanation is that when MM cannot get his own way he becomes very demanding, and this ultimately leads MM to, in effect, retaliate by fabricating events which are the subject of the allegations.
84 This version of events is largely accepted by KM and also by MM's brother, AC, who says that MM did the same thing to him in the past.
85 What I accept the situation to be is this.
86 The primary carer for MM is his mother, KM. Both MM and KM are devoted to each other.
87 MM's care needs are significant.
88 MM is a young man who is dependent on others for all his needs and is unable to physically give effect to his wants. By any measure this must be extremely frustrating, having to rely upon others for everything.
89 In addition, MM like any young man, wants to make his way in the world.
90 This must invariably cause tension in the household which has been exacerbated by the illness of KM and the extra pressure that has fallen to BM.
91 The family has not coped very well with this extra pressure.
92 The problem for MM is that he cannot do anything about his situation other than to voice his concerns. This he has done over a period of time - at least from early in 2015 - and to a number of people, including his general practitioner.
93 I do not accept that when MM makes these statements or allegations they should be simply dismissed as baseless.
94 At the very least they are evidence of MM's serious concerns regarding his circumstances from time to time and about which he is otherwise powerless to do anything.
95 The fact that MM later retracts the allegations is not inconsistent with my findings.
96 The strength of the bond between MM and KM should not be underestimated. KM wants MM to live with her and he understandably responds to his mother's wishes. In addition, he is very worried about her because of her illness and he can only ease his anxiety if he sees her.
97 However, this does not alter the fact that at times MM feels trapped in his environment.
98 I accept that KM is placed in a very difficult position, dealing with her own needs and the needs of MM and BM.
99 Unfortunately, in my view, the consequence is that the family minimises the need of MM to have a voice and to be able to act on that voice when a situation becomes untenable to him.
100 In the circumstances of MM's disabilities and his living situation, I am satisfied that only an appointed guardian can effectively deal with the problems that MM faces and make decisions in his best interests.
101 At this point in time, I am not confident that I can appoint MM's sister, JH, or his brother, AC, either solely or jointly, to be his guardian. In the current state of the relationship between KM, BM and service providers, the sister and brother would be placed in an untenable position in deciding what is in MM's best interests.
102 This may change over time; however, the current situation demands the reappointment of the Public Advocate as MM's guardian.
103 The areas of concern, given the allegations and my findings, are MM's accommodation, service provision and contact arrangements.
104 I appoint the Public Advocate as limited guardian with those functions.
105 I am satisfied KM should continue to make MM's treatment decisions at this time, pursuant to s 110ZD of the GA Act.
106 It is clear from the submissions of KM and BM in the hearing that they oppose the appointment of the Public Advocate.
107 I accept that to be the case.
108 As a consequence, the management of MM's finances is an issue that needs to be clarified.
109 I am satisfied that MM is a person for whom an administration order can be made.
110 I am further satisfied that MM is in need of an administrator and that it must be the Public Trustee. There are two reasons for this: firstly, a decision by the guardian will likely have financial implications; and secondly, I need to be confident that the person who manages MM's income and funds is compatible with the guardian: s 68(3)(a) of the GA Act.
111 For the reasons I have already given regarding the guardianship application, I am not satisfied that a member of MM's family would be compatible with the Public Advocate's appointment, given the substantial risk that they will disagree with a decision of the guardian.
112 I therefore appoint the Public Trustee as MM's plenary administrator.
113 I will include a gifting provision of $250 per annum in the administration order.
114 I will set a review period of two years for both orders.
Orders
115 The Tribunal makes the following orders:
Guardianship
116 The Tribunal declares that the represented person:
(a) is incapable of looking after his own health and safety;
(b) is unable to make reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to his person;
(c) is in need of oversight, care or control in the interests of his own health and safety; and
(d) is in need of a guardian,
- and the Tribunal orders that:
117 The order is amended so that it now reads:
1. The Public Advocate of Level 2, International House, 26 St Georges Terrace, 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 determine what contact, if any, the represented person should have with others and the extent of that contact.
(d) To determine the services to which the represented person should have access.
2. The Tribunal approves delegation by the Public Advocate of her functions as guardian of the represented person to an officer or employee employed in the Office of the Public Advocate.
3. This order is to be reviewed by 20 May 2018.
Administration
118 The Tribunal declares that the represented person:
(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,
- and the Tribunal orders that:
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 Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA).
2. The administrator is authorised to expend up to a total amount of $250 per annum on gifts on behalf of the represented person.
3. This order is to be reviewed by 20 May 2018.
I certify that this and the preceding [118] paragraphs comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
___________________________________
MR J MANSVELD, SENIOR MEMBER
0
1