MM
[2015] WASAT 78
•16 JULY 2015
MM [2015] WASAT 78
| STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL | Citation No: | [2015] WASAT 78 | |
| GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1990 (WA) | |||
| Case No: | GAA:351/2015 | 8 AND 28 APRIL 2015 | |
| Coram: | MS L EDDY (MEMBER) | 16/07/15 | |
| 16 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Application allowed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | MM |
Catchwords: | Guardianship and administration Capacity to make reasonable decisions Need for orders Divorced parents Competing views and mistrust Turns on own facts |
Legislation: | Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), s 4, s 40, s 43, s 44, s 64, s 68(1), s 68(3), s 84 State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) |
Case References: | Nil |
Summary | The mother of JBM, a 19yearold man with autism spectrum disorder, applied for guardianship and administration orders in relation to JBM because of differing opinions and mistrust between herself and JBM's father in relation to what was best for JBM. The Tribunal found that there was mutual mistrust and animosity between JBM's parents and that they were unable to communicate reasonably with each other in order to make decisions together in JBM's best interests. The Tribunal found that JBM did not currently have capacity to make complex financial or personal decisions and that there was a need for both guardianship and administration orders because of the dysfunctional relationship between JBM's parents. The Tribunal found that JBM's maternal uncle was a person who was willing and suitable to be appointed as JBM's administrator. JBM's father had concerns about the uncle's ability to be independent of JBM's mother and include him, the father, in decisionmaking, but the Tribunal was not satisfied that these concerns were warranted on the information available. The Tribunal found that JBM's mother was suitable for appointment as JBM's guardian to make treatment decisions only. The level of mistrust and animosity, the inability to communicate and the importance of both parents in JBM's life meant that neither of JBM's parents was otherwise suitable for appointment as JBM's guardian. |
JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ACT : GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1990 (WA) CITATION : MM [2015] WASAT 78 MEMBER : MS L EDDY (MEMBER) HEARD : 8 AND 28 APRIL 2015 DELIVERED : 16 JULY 2015 FILE NO/S : GAA 351 of 2015
- GAA 353 of 2015
- Applicant
Catchwords:
Guardianship and administration Capacity to make reasonable decisions Need for orders Divorced parents Competing views and mistrust Turns on own facts
Legislation:
Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), s 4, s 40, s 43, s 44, s 64, s 68(1), s 68(3), s 84
State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA)
Result:
Application allowed
Summary of Tribunal's decision:
The mother of JBM, a 19yearold man with autism spectrum disorder, applied for guardianship and administration orders in relation to JBM because of differing opinions and mistrust between herself and JBM's father in relation to what was best for JBM. The Tribunal found that there was mutual mistrust and animosity between JBM's parents and that they were unable to communicate reasonably with each other in order to make decisions together in JBM's best interests. The Tribunal found that JBM did not currently have capacity to make complex financial or personal decisions and that there was a need for both guardianship and administration orders because of the dysfunctional relationship between JBM's parents. The Tribunal found that JBM's maternal uncle was a person who was willing and suitable to be appointed as JBM's administrator. JBM's father had concerns about the uncle's ability to be independent of JBM's mother and include him, the father, in decisionmaking, but the Tribunal was not satisfied that these concerns were warranted on the information available. The Tribunal found that JBM's mother was suitable for appointment as JBM's guardian to make treatment decisions only. The level of mistrust and animosity, the inability to communicate and the importance of both parents in JBM's life meant that neither of JBM's parents was otherwise suitable for appointment as JBM's guardian.
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant : In Person
Solicitors:
Applicant : N/A
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
Introduction
1 This matter comes before the Tribunal by way of an application dated 28 January 2015 made under s 40 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) (GA Act). The application is made by MM, who seeks the appointment of an administrator for the estate of, and a guardian for, her son, JBM. JBM was diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder as a child.
2 JBM turned 18 years old in October 2014. MM and JBM's father, JM, are divorced, but both are still involved in JBM's life. Prior to JBM turning 18 years old, MM and JM were in dispute in the Family Court about whom should make decisions for JBM, and MM says this dispute has not been resolved since JBM turned 18 years old. In this application, MM seeks to be appointed as the guardian and the administrator for JBM. JM contests MM's appointment to these roles.
Issues for determination
3 The issues for determination are identified by having regard to relevant provisions of the GA Act. Section 4 of the GA Act states the principles that the Tribunal must observe in dealing with any application under the GA Act. Sections 43 and 64 of the GA Act, respectively, specify the tests to be met before a guardianship and administration order can be made.
4 The issues to be determined in this application are therefore:
1) whether JBM is a person for whom a guardianship or an administration order can be made (capacity); and
2) whether there is a need for a guardianship or an administration order.
- When considering whether there is a need for a guardianship or an administration order, the Tribunal must keep in mind s 4(4) of the GA Act, which provides:
A guardianship or administration order shall not be made if the needs of the person in respect of whom an application for such an order is made could, in the opinion of the State Administrative Tribunal, be met by other means less restrictive of the person's freedom of decision and action.
If the above questions are answered in the affirmative, the following further issues arise:
3) whether any order should be plenary or limited, what functions should be conferred, and whether any directions or conditions should be placed on the order(s);
4) who should be appointed as guardian and/or administrator; and
5) when should the order(s) be required to be reviewed by the Tribunal.
6 In determining the application as a whole, including each of the above issues, the Tribunal is required to have JBM's best interests as its primary concern: s 4(2) of the GA Act. In addition, it is necessary, where possible, to ascertain the views and wishes of JBM in relation to the matters raised by this application: s 4(7) of the GA Act.
Capacity
7 The starting point for determining whether a guardianship or an administration order should be made is the fundamental, but rebuttable, presumption of capacity found in s 4(3) of the GA Act.
8 The Tribunal was provided with three pieces of documentary information in relation to JBM's capacity. The first is a report from Dr PW, a clinical psychologist, dated 25 January 2013 in relation to a cognitive and adaptive functioning assessment of JBM. Dr PW reported that JBM's full-scale IQ was in the low average range of ability, placing him the in bottom 18% of the population. Subtests within the full scale IQ test indicated that JBM's strengths were in visual-based tasks and working memory. JBM showed relative weaknesses in relation to verbal comprehension and processing speed. In relation to functional capacity, Dr PW reported that the assessment showed that JBM has significant issues in the areas of communication and socialising. The second document is a 'Patient Assessment' by Dr WV, JBM's general practitioner, dated 4 September 2012 in which it is stated that JBM has been diagnosed with 'autism'. The third document is a report from Ms TD, senior clinical psychologist at Intervention Services for Autism and Developmental Delay, dated 13 October 2014. Ms TD stated that she did not consider that JBM is capable of organising and managing his own finances. She also stated, in effect, that JBM cannot yet live independently and continues to need his parents' input in helping him make decisions about personal matters.
9 JBM acknowledges he has a disability called autism and, because of this, he says, he thinks differently to other people and has different interests to some others. Despite this, JBM told the investigator from the Office of the Public Advocate (OPA), and confirmed at the hearing, that he feels he can make his own financial and personal decisions. In Ms TD's report, she stated that JBM told her that he did not think he could pay bills and work out a savings plan on his own.
10 It was clear from the evidence at the hearing that, using a bank card and a PIN, JBM has access to a bank account from which he withdraws his spending money as he wishes. JBM also has a second bank account, and the majority of his income goes into that account. JM says that JBM can access this second account by going into the bank, but JM trusts JBM not to do that. JBM does not pay any rent or board or any household bills, although he is responsible for paying for credit for his mobile phone and his SmartRider card. JM says that JBM manages these things quite well. JM also said that he had taken JBM food shopping and shown him how to pay for the purchases using his card and PIN. MM said that from her observation, JBM feels that he needs to get permission from JM before making any decision about an expense that is out of the ordinary. In relation to payment for JMB's current TAFE course, MM said that she had to arrange for up-front payment for that as JBM was not capable of understanding or arranging a payment plan to occur. The OPA investigator reported that JBM was not able to tell her how much money he had in either of his bank accounts.
11 I am satisfied that, at this point in time, it is JM who, in effect, oversees JBM's bank accounts and makes the main decisions in relation to budgeting for JBM.
12 MM, her brother and her parents (JBM's uncle and grandparents) and JBM's sister all gave evidence to the effect that JBM is very significantly influenced in his decision-making by what his father says. Ms TD's report also contained a statement to this effect. I found this evidence credible and supported by the apparent dynamic between JBM and JM during the hearing. I accept that JMB's decisions are likely to be significantly influenced by what he believes is his father's view about the matter in question and, as such, they may not always be entirely his own decisions. As far as I am able to tell, JM advises JBM as best he can in his genuine belief as to what he considers is in JBM's best interests, but nonetheless, the significant weight given by JBM to JM's views raises the question of how much JBM is able to weigh alternative options where JM is heavily supportive of, or alternatively strongly against, one of those options.
13 JM and MM agree that JBM needs assistance with decision-making, both financial and personal, at least at this point in time. They expressed differences as to how much assistance they felt JBM needed, but I am satisfied that, in fact, these differences are more about how they view JBM's future capability rather than what his capability is at the present time. JBM's sister, uncle and grandparents also agreed that, presently, JBM was not independently capable of making financial or personal decisions of any complexity.
14 On all of the evidence before me, I am satisfied that the presumption of capacity, in relation to both financial and personal decisions of any complexity, has been rebutted. I am satisfied that, because of his autism, JBM is not, at the current time, capable of making reasonable decisions about his estate or his person if there is complexity involved. I am also satisfied that JBM is in need of oversight, care and control.
Need for orders
15 MM asserts that there is a need for formal administration and guardianship orders but JM asserts that there is no such need. JBM does not think he needs someone to make decisions for him in relation to his estate or personal matters.
Administration
16 In relation to administration, MM says that there is a need for an order because currently JM is making financial decisions for JBM. She says this is a problem because, in her view, JM cannot be trusted to make financial decisions in JBM's best interests. In addition, she says that JM excludes her from having information about JBM's finances. That is an issue, she says, because it does nothing to relieve her mistrust of JM and because it impacts on the making of personal decisions in JBM's best interests where there are costs involved.
17 JM says that there is no reason for MM to mistrust him and denies that he has ever refused to give MM information about JBM's finances since he has had control. Previously, MM had control of JBM's finances and JM says that he had to get an order from the Family Court before MM would give him any information about JBM's bank accounts. JM considers that MM cannot be trusted to have any role in JBM's financial affairs. JM says that the current situation whereby he assists JBM with managing two bank accounts is a suitable arrangement and is a less restrictive option than the making of an administration order. He says, as was confirmed by JBM during the hearing, that JBM is happy with this current arrangement and there is no need to change it.
18 I am satisfied that there is a mutual, and equally strongly held, mistrust between MM and JM. It is not relevant, in this case, whether the lack of trust on either side is reasonably based or not, because I am satisfied that both parties truly believe that the other's involvement in JBM's finances is not in JBM's best interests. I am also satisfied that JM and MM cannot communicate clearly and dispassionately with each other in relation to decisions concerning JBM. I accept JBM's evidence, and that of his sister, to the effect that JM and MM only communicate with each other through them. There is a high level of animosity between JM and MM and it is clear that their history of communicating through their children distresses both JBM and his sister.
19 JBM is over 18 years of age and I have found that he is not currently independently making his own financial decisions, except in relation to how his personal spending money is used. While JBM says he is happy with the existing arrangements, I am unclear to what degree JBM's reliance on his father's views affects JBM's views at this time. The fact that JM is effectively managing JBM's finances at present is, I am satisfied, causing difficulty between JM and MM, at least from MM's point of view. I am satisfied that, because of the level of mistrust and animosity between JM and MM, for either parent to be in charge of JBM's finances at present can only cause disputes that will affect JBM's relationships with his parents. I am not satisfied that the current informal arrangement is working in JBM's best interests.
Guardianship
20 MM submits that there is definitely a need for someone to have formal authority to make important personal decisions for JBM. MM feels that she can tell what JBM wants by talking with him and through his body language, and she knows what is best for JBM, but she says her ability to make decisions for JBM is 'blocked' by JM. In MM's view, decisions in relation to JBM's schooling, his work, and his further education have all been prevented or made difficult by JM.
21 JM says that he did disagree with MM's proposed decision for JBM to leave school after Year 11, but he did so because leaving school at that time was not in JBM's best interests. JM says he arranged with the school for JBM to attend general classes rather than special education classes. JBM said a number of times during the hearing that his last year in school was his best year so far. After JBM finished school, JM explained that he helped JBM find a suitable job, which, according to JM, has helped improve JBM's skills and life experience. JM says that he did not disagree with the proposal for JBM to attend TAFE; rather, when he was told about it, he agreed to pay half of the fees in order to assist JBM to attend.
22 It was patently apparent, upon hearing MM and JM describe how various important decisions have been made for JBM, that neither MM nor JM consulted with the other before making important decisions for JBM. In each case, MM and JM made what each considered to be the best decision for JBM and, having decided it, conveyed that decision, apparently through JBM, to the other parent. It was clear that neither MM nor JM is currently capable of putting aside their animosity and distrust of their ex-spouse in order to calmly discuss matters with the other and come to agreed conclusions about what is in JBM's best interests. JBM currently lives with MM and regularly spends time with JM. JBM says that he would like to live with his father, although he recognises that that would not be practical at the moment. It was apparent that, although JBM is currently more reliant on his father's views in forming his opinions, he has a close relationship with both of his parents. It is also apparent that JM and MM do not always have the same views about what is in JBM's best interests. JBM is currently employed and is attending TAFE part-time. He is interested in pursuing a career that is different to the area he is currently employed in. I am satisfied that it is likely that there will be a need for someone to make personal decisions in relation to accommodation, education and training, work, services and medical treatment matters for JBM, at least for the foreseeable future.
23 For all of these reasons, I am satisfied there currently is a need for someone to have formal authority to make important and complex personal decisions for JBM.
Functions
24 JBM has at least two bank accounts. According to MM, JBM has a significant amount in a savings account that is, or was, held in trust for JBM. It is unclear whether this is one of the two previously mentioned bank accounts or a third account. JBM has income from a job and from Centrelink. Although he is not currently paying any rent or living expenses, he does have a number of regular expenses that need to be managed. I am satisfied that it is appropriate than a plenary, or full, administration order is appropriate in the circumstances.
25 In relation to personal decisions, as indicated above, I am satisfied that it would be in JBM's best interests to have a guardian who has authority to make decisions in relation to treatment, services, accommodation, education or training and work matters. I am satisfied that a limited guardianship order will be sufficient and that there is no need to make a plenary guardianship order.
Who should be appointed
26 In considering who should be appointed as administrator or guardian, it is important to have regard to JBM's wishes and views.
27 In the hearing, JBM said that he trusted his father to help him with financial matters and he did not trust his mother in this area. The investigator from OPA advised that JBM told her that he does not trust MM in relation to his finances because she once asked him to tell her information about his bank account that he has been firmly taught should never be shared, and therefore she could not be trusted. JBM was clear in his wish that he wants his father to continue to assist him with his finances in the same way he is currently doing.
28 In relation to personal decisions, JBM said he thought his father had helped him more, although he said it was MM who helped him get into TAFE. JBM agreed with the proposition that both of his parents support him in different ways. As indicated above, it was apparent that JBM was very heavily influenced by JM's views and, perhaps because of this, JBM seems to prefer his father's assistance in any decision-making at this point in time.
29 The GA Act specifically requires the Tribunal to also have regard to a number of other factors. Section 44 of the GA Act relevant provides:
(1) A guardian (including a joint guardian) shall be an individual of or over the age of 18 years who has consented to act and who in the opinion of the State Administrative Tribunal
(a) will act in the best interests of the person in respect of whom the application is made;
(b) is not in a position where his interests conflict or may conflict with the interests of that person; and
(c) is otherwise suitable to act as the guardian of that person.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(c) the State Administrative Tribunal shall take into account as far as is possible
(a) the desirability of preserving existing relationships within the family of the person in respect of whom the application is made;
(b) the compatibility of the proposed appointee with that person and with the administrator (if any) of that person's estate;
(c) the wishes of the person in respect of whom the application is made; and
(d) whether the proposed appointee will be able to perform the functions vested in him.
…
(5) Except where he is appointed to act jointly with another person or other persons, the State Administrative Tribunal shall not appoint the Public Advocate as a guardian unless there is no other person who is suitable and willing to act.
30 In relation to administration, s 68(1) and s 68(3) of the GA Act provide:
(1) An administrator (including a joint administrator) shall be
(a) an individual of or over the age of 18 years; or
(b) a corporate trustee,
who has consented to act and who, in the opinion of the State Administrative Tribunal
(c) will act in the best interests of the person in respect of whom the application is made; and
(d) is otherwise suitable to act as the administrator of the estate of that person.
…
(3) For the purposes of subsection (1), the State Administrative Tribunal shall take into account as far as is possible
(a) the compatibility of the proposed appointee with the person in respect of whom the application is made and with the guardian (if any) of that person;
(b) the wishes of that person; and
(c) whether the proposed appointee will be able to perform the functions proposed to be vested in the administrator.
31 JBM's parents, MM and JM, each advised the Tribunal that if a guardian were to be appointed for JBM, they would want to be the individual appointed. It was not proposed, sensibly in my view, that MM and JM be appointed together as JBM's guardian. If MM and JM could effectively work together to make decisions in JBM's best interests, then there would be no need for a guardian to be appointed. As I have stated above, I am not satisfied that MM and JM, at least at this point in time, are capable of working together to make decisions in JBM's best interests.
32 MM claimed, and it was not disputed, that she is, and has been, the parent responsible for arranging all medical and dental treatment matters for JBM. I am satisfied that it is MM who has had the role of assisting JBM in making medical and dental treatment decisions so far. JM has not to date had any significant role in this area of decision-making for JBM. The available information suggests JBM is a healthy young man and, at least after his autism diagnosis was clarified, there have not been any major treatment decisions required to be made. It seems likely, absent any major accident or similar incident, that there will be only a limited number of routine medical and dental treatment decisions to be made in the near future. While JBM remains living with MM, it is likely to be MM who will be more immediately involved with any minor medical or dental treatment issues JBM might be expected to face. The dysfunctional relationship between MM and JM is such that, were there any significant and/or controversial treatment decisions to be made for JBM, I am not satisfied that either could be relied upon to reasonably communicate and consult with the other before making a decision. Because both MM and JM are important to JBM, if it were likely that any such decisions would need to be made on any regular basis, it would not be suitable for either of JBM's parents to have the authority to make treatment decisions. However, although there is, of course, always a possibility that something unforeseen may happen, I am satisfied that it is reasonably likely that any treatment decisions for JBM at this stage of his life will be routine or minor in nature. As such, I am satisfied that it would be preferable to keep this very personal type of decision-making authority with someone close to JBM. Because she is the person who has been responsible for this area of decision-making for JBM, I am satisfied that MM should be appointed as JBM's guardian with the authority to make treatment decisions. I am not persuaded that MM having this authority will negatively impact on JBM's relationship with either of his parents.
33 In relation to the other authorities that I am satisfied a guardian needs to have in JBM's best interests, the involvement of both of JBM's parents is essential, given the importance of both of them in JBM's life currently. As I have already stated, I am not satisfied that either parent is capable of reasonably communicating with the other so as to meaningfully give them an opportunity to be heard and involved in the relevant decision. Therefore, I am satisfied that, with the exception of authority in relation to treatment decisions, neither MM nor JM are suitable for appointment as JBM's guardian. As no one else known to JBM put themselves forward as willing to take on the role of guardian, I have no option but to appoint the Public Advocate as JBM's guardian.
Administration
34 MM, JM and JMB's uncle (BV) put themselves forward as willing to take on the role of administrator if the Tribunal determined that one should be appointed.
35 I am not satisfied that either JM or MM is suitable to be appointed as administrator of JBM's estate because of the level of distrust and animosity between them and because of their complete inability to communicate reasonably with each other. I considered whether the oversight of the Public Trustee that such an appointment brings would be sufficient to allay MM's mistrust in order to allow JM to be appointed as the administrator in accordance with JBM's apparent wishes. However, I am satisfied that the level of the distrust and animosity, and the accompanying communication issues, are such that, even with the accompanying oversight, appointing JM is likely to have a negative impact on JBM's relationship with MM. Both of his parents are significant and important people in JBM's life and therefore it is not in JBM's best interests to do anything that could negatively impact on either relationship. Further, I am not satisfied that JM would be able to effectively work with MM in her role as limited guardian.
36 BV is JBM's uncle and has a reasonably close relationship with him. I am satisfied that BV is a person who understands the role of an administrator and who would make decisions in JBM's best interests. I am also satisfied that BV is willing and capable of fulfilling an administrator's reporting obligations and of keeping necessary records and accounts. BV assured the Tribunal that he was willing to consult with both MM and JM concerning financial decisions for JBM. As BV is MM's brother, JM said that he felt BV would not make decisions independently on behalf of JBM and would not take JM's views into account. BV said that he could objectively and reasonably communicate with JM despite some admitted tensions between them in the past. He said that he would treat JM as he would a business contact and keep everything on a very business-like basis. BV said that he was willing to make financial decisions in JBM's best interests and that he could make decisions independently without being unduly influenced by his sister. It is understandable that JM views BV as being in MM's 'camp', so to speak, and that he is concerned that he will be excluded by BV if BV is appointed as administrator. However, given BV's undertaking that he would include JM and would consult with him; his assertion that he could make decisions independently from MM in JBM's best interests; and the absence of any significant history that would belie those assertions, I do not have any reasonable basis to find BV unsuitable for the role of administrator. I am satisfied that it is in JBM's best interests to have a person known to him make financial decisions for him so long as such an appointment does not negatively impact on his relationships with that person or anyone else who is an important part of JBM's life. At this stage, on the information available to me, I am satisfied that the appointment of BV is not likely to negatively impact on any of JBM's relationships. Therefore, it is in JBM's best interests to appoint BV as his administrator. In order to ensure that JBM's parents are not unnecessarily excluded from relevant information concerning JBM's finances, it is appropriate in this case to direct the administrator to provide to each of JBM's parents a copy of any reports required to be provided to the Public Trustee.
When should orders be reviewed?
37 Section 84 of the GA Act provides that, when making a guardianship or administration order, the Tribunal must specify a period, not exceeding five years from the date of the order, within which the order or orders shall be reviewed.
38 It is relevant to my decision on this issue that, on the evidence available to me, JBM's capacity is impaired by a condition that is considered to be permanent. It is unclear to what extent, and how quickly, any functional improvement in JBM's decision-making abilities will occur. In my view, review of the orders in five years is appropriate.
Declaration and orders
GAA 351 of 2015:
39 On an application for the appointment of an administrator for the represented person heard before Member L Eddy on 28 April 2015:
1. 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. [BV] of [address] 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 directed to provide a copy of any documents required to be provided to the Public Trustee to each of the represented person's parents.
3. This order is to be reviewed by 13 July 2020.
40 On an application for the appointment of a guardian for the represented person heard before Member L Eddy on 28 April 2015:
1. The Tribunal declares that the represented person:
(a) is unable to make reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to his person;
(b) is in need of oversight, care or control in the interests of his own health and safety or for the protection of others; and
(c) is in need of a guardian,
and the Tribunal orders that:
1. [MM] of [address] is appointed limited guardian of the represented person with the following function:
(a) Subject to Division 3 of Part 5 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), to make treatment decisions for the represented person.
2. 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;
3. This order is to be reviewed by 13 July 2020.
I certify that this and the preceding [40] paragraphs comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
___________________________________
MS L EDDY, MEMBER
0
0
2