MRR

[2012] QCAT 504

CITATION: MRR [2012] QCAT 504

PARTIES: MRR

APPLICATION NUMBER: GAA6509-12

MATTER TYPE: Guardianship and administration matters for adults

HEARING DATE: On the papers

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF: C Endicott, Senior Member

DELIVERED ON: 27 July 2012

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE: The application for an interim order for MRR is dismissed. 

CATCHWORDS:

GUARDIANSHIP – where guardian had been appointed to make accommodation decisions – where review of appointment sought – where interim orders sought – where no evidence of immediate risk of harm

Guardianship and Administration Act 2000, s 129

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (QCAT Act).

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. MRR lives in residential aged care.  Her daughter, SJ, wants MRR to live with her.  A guardian and an administrator were appointed for MRR by QCAT on 29 September 2011.  The guardian has the authority to make decisions about accommodation, health care and services.  SJ is neither the appointed guardian nor the appointed administrator. 

2. SJ has applied to QCAT for a review of the appointment of the guardian and administrator.  She also applied in the interim for orders directing in effect the removal of MRR from her current accommodation and placement of MRR into SJ’s home.  

3. When a person makes an application to QCAT, such as an application to review the appointment of an appointed decision maker, the person can also apply for an interim order in the proceeding. QCAT can under section 129 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 make an interim order in the proceeding without a hearing and without deciding the proceeding only if QCAT is satisfied that there is an immediate risk of harm to the health or welfare of the adult concerned in the application.  The making of an interim order is discretionary.

4. In her application, SJ asserted that MRR was in immediate danger as her health was being ignored, that MRR was refusing necessary services and that MRR’s safety was at risk through the actions of others.  The evidence she provided in support of her application was contained in her affidavit.  No evidence was provided about MRR being in immediate danger. 

5. In the absence of evidence that MRR was at immediate risk of harm in her current residential environment, there were no grounds on which I could be satisfied that the discretionary interim relief sought by SJ should be granted.        

6. Her application for interim orders was dismissed.