NJH - [2017] WASAT 98

JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

ACT: GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1990 (WA)

CITATION: NJH [2017] WASAT 98

MEMBER: MR J MANSVELD (SENIOR MEMBER)

HEARD: 8 JUNE 2017

DELIVERED : 16 JUNE 2017

PUBLISHED : 7 JULY 2017

FILE NO/S: GAA 1011 of 2017

BETWEEN: NJH
Represented Person

Catchwords:

Guardianship and administration - Disability - Capacity - Incapable of looking after health and safety - In need of oversight and care in the interests of health and safety - Unable to make reasonable judgments for personal and financial matters - Decision concerning accommodation - Effect of a guardianship decision - Decisions concerning treatment, services and contact with others - Views and wishes of represented person - Less restrictive alternative - Best interests

Legislation:

Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), s 3, s 4(2), s 4(4), s 17A, s 43, s 44(5), s 64, s 68, s 68(3)(a), s 80(1), s 84, s 90

Result:

Guardian and administrator appointed

Summary of Tribunal's decision:

NJH is a 22 year old man who has been diagnosed with a number of disabilities in his young life. He has been under guardianship and administration orders since early 2013. These orders had been made pursuant to the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA).
The most recent orders made had appointed NJH's grandmother, NH as his guardian and the administrator of his estate. NH had the authority as guardian to make decisions about NJH's accommodation, services, medical treatment, work and workplace agreements and the contact he should have with others.
NJH assisted by a former carer, SM, sought review of the guardianship and administration orders.
The main presenting issue was NJH's longterm accommodation. He had previously lived in a rental property with a live-in carer but this ended when the live-in carer left. It was subsequently arranged for NJH to have respite care with CM and LM (former respite carers) on a rural property.
As guardian NH preferred for NJH to return to the rental property and for another carer to be arranged. NJH wanted to stay with CM and LM who had stated they were prepared to provide long-term accommodation.
NJH's family were concerned they were not having enough contact with him whilst he was living with CM and LM. NJH did not want contact with certain members of his family.
SM, the former carer who now lives outside of Western Australia, was of the view that NJH should continue to live with CM and LM and alleged that his family had abused and neglected him in the past and had not contributed positively to his life.
CM maintained that since living with his family NJH had improved markedly in his functioning and that guardianship and administration orders were not needed. This was also the view of NJH and SM.
NH and an uncle of NJH, GH, had the view that NJH was still in need of a guardian and administrator. They proposed themselves to be appointed in those roles.
The Tribunal found that it was more likely than not that NJH placed the most emphasis on his current circumstances when deciding what he wanted and that he assessed things in the short-term. The Tribunal found that NJH's diagnosed conditions impacted and exacerbated this tendency (or inability) to consider the long-term implications of what he wanted to do and this made him vulnerable and impressionable.
The Tribunal decided to revoke the existing orders and appoint the Public Advocate as NJH's guardian and the Public Trustee as the administrator of his estate. It could not appoint either of SM, NH or GH because they appeared to be fixed in their individual views and in addition SM and NJH's family had strong negative views of each other. It was found that NJH was not in a position to test his decisionmaking abilities in that very pressured environment.

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Represented Person : N/A

Solicitors:

Represented Person : N/A

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:

Introduction

NJH is 22 year old man who has been diagnosed with a number of disabilities in his young life. He has been under guardianship and administration orders since early 2013.
These orders have been made pursuant to the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) (GA Act).
These reasons relate to a review of the guardianship and administration orders sought by NJH and a former carer SM who assisted him in making the review applications (review applications).
The hearing for the review applications was held on 8 June 2017 and the decision with oral reasons was delivered on 16 June 2017.
The reasons below are those delivered orally and amended where necessary to provide clarity and to provide greater detail of particular legislative references.

The main parties

The parties who attended the hearing on 8 June 2017 and gave oral evidence are as follows:
•NJH -   represented person
•SM -    former carer and co-applicant
•MH -    mother of NJH
•NH -     grandmother of NJH and his guardian and                administrator at the time of the hearing
•RH -     grandfather of NJH
•CM -    current carer of NJH
•LM -    current carer of NJH and spouse of CM
•GH -    uncle of NJH and son of NH
•SS -     representative of agency coordinating services to             NJH (service agency)
•AC -     Investigator from the Office of the Public   Advocate

Previous orders made by the Tribunal

On 27 February 2013, MH and CH (NJH's stepfather) were appointed the joint plenary administrators of his estate and his joint limited guardians to make decisions concerning his accommodation, work and any related workplace agreement, medical treatment, his contact with others, support services and the use if necessary of chemical restraint.
At the time NJH had been diagnosed with Autism, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and a borderline to mild intellectual disability. He had suffered a drug induced psychotic episode and had served a short term of imprisonment. The available reports showed that NJH had a history of being easily manipulated by his peers to engage in alcohol and substance use and illegal activities. His parents had refused to have him return to the family home as they could no longer live safely with him. NJH had been placed in respite care with SM and her spouse IM. The Disability Services Commission (DSC) was reported to be in the process of assessing the possibility of funding being made available for NJH's accommodation and support.
In 2014, SM made application for review of the guardianship and administration orders made in 2013. NJH had continued to live with her and IM. In her application SM said that MH appeared not to have the ability to make decisions in NJH's best interests as she was compromised by the domestic violence and intimidating actions of CH. SM and IM were intending to soon retire. SM said there appeared to be no accountability or supervision of NJH's money. SM also said that when NJH was first placed in respite care with her he suffered with several phobias, was extremely angry, felt abandoned, was obsessive and had challenging behaviours. His medical needs had been neglected, in particular his dentition. He struggled to eat properly and his personal hygiene regime was very poor. SM maintained that MH and CH had not contributed anything positive to NJH's life. It was reported that CH had cut off NJH's contact with his mother, MH.
On 21 July 2014, the Tribunal appointed NH as plenary administrator of NJH's estate and limited guardian to make decisions about his medical treatment, accommodation, services, work, workplace agreements and contact.
In January 2016, the guardianship and administration orders were subject to a periodic review pursuant to s 84 of the GA Act. A mental health review in July 2015 noted that NJH had angry outbursts and emotional dysregulation. The treating psychiatrist speculated that NJH's difficulties represented a combination of low IQ and ADHD. The Public Trustee reported that NH had appropriately reported how she had expended NJH's funds and as at July 2015, NJH had $4,360 in bank funds.
On 20 January 2016, the Tribunal confirmed the guardianship and administration orders made on 21 July 2014.
In late 2016, NH sought review of the administration order to have a gifting authority included and on 19 January 2017, the administration order was amended to include a gifting authority of $300 per year.

Medical reports

The Tribunal was provided with a report from NJH's general practitioner (GP). In the report the GP states that he has known NJH since 1997 and lists the diagnoses ascribed to NJH as ADHD, autism spectrum disorder, borderline intellectual functioning, antisocial personality and previous drug induced psychosis.
It is the current opinion of the GP that NJH is unable to make reasonable decisions in all areas of decisionmaking (personal, financial and legal) but he is unsure as to the capacity of NJH to make an enduring power of attorney and an enduring power of guardianship.

Evidence and submissions

NJH

NJH states that he lives on a farm with CM and LM and their family. He says that he is very happy there but that his guardian, NH, is forcing him to return to a rental property in which he had previously lived with a livein carer (rental property). He believes NH is too controlling as his guardian and administrator and wants her removed from those roles.
NJH states that when he was living in the rental property, CH would constantly eat his food and use his washing machine all of which contributed to the live-in carer deciding to leave.
NJH says that MH has now left CH due to his longterm domestic violence.
NJH states that he sees no reason to have CH's family involved in his life.
NJH says that he has had a hard and troubled life but this has changed. He says he has learnt to control himself. He is hoping to get local employment.
NJH does not believe that he needs a guardian and administrator, but if it is considered necessary by the Tribunal then he would choose SM. He says that he does not feel safe with his family and that he does not like to see his mother being abused.
NJH states that his GP has referred him for a neuropsychological assessment.

SM

SM states that NJH recently contacted her regarding what he sees as an untenable situation concerning his future living arrangements.
SM says that she and IM retired to New South Wales in late 2014. Since then she has had contact with NJH and considers him to be a friend.
SM says that prior to his current accommodation with CM and LM, NJH was living in the rental property. This had been arranged by NH. However, because of the alleged interference of the family the livein carer left the rental property and as a consequence NJH went to live with CM and LM from the middle of December 2016.
SM states that the rental property remains empty and NJH continues to pay rent for it. NH as guardian is insisting that NJH return to the rental property without a livein carer.
SM says that NJH has expressed to her that he felt isolated in the rental property even with the livein carer and he felt very exposed to his family whom SM considers are detrimental to his overall wellbeing.
SM contends that CM and LM provide NJH with a family life and appropriate cultural experiences and that he is very happy living with them.
SM states that CM and LM have told her that they will be happy to provide longterm accommodation for NJH.
SM says that NJH is assisted by a supported employment agency in his wish to work.
SM alleges that NJH has been abused by his family as well as NH and that the service agency was aware of this but did not bring it to the attention of the Tribunal.
SM further alleges that the service agency has gagged CM and LM from assisting NJH with his quest for a review of the guardianship order.
SM states that NH only gives NJH $40 a week for spending and that she refuses to engage with him to hear his side of the story.
SM submits that when NJH is in a supported environment he is capable of making his own decisions. She is of the view that the guardianship and administration orders should be revoked, however if the Tribunal considers revocation premature she would propose to be appointed as NJH's guardian and administrator.

NH

NH states that in December 2016 NJH's livein carer moved to Melbourne at which time NJH went for temporary care to CM and LM, a host family known to him from previous respite arrangements. CM and LM live on a rural property. NH says that the service agency arranged for the temporary care until a suitable fulltime carer could be employed.
NH states that the accommodation with CM and LM was only ever intended for the shortterm and not as a longterm accommodation. NH says she is concerned that CM sees the current arrangement with NJH as the beginning of a business venture for himself.
NH states that the rental property is close to NJH's usual place of employment and is well placed for his appointments and leisure activities. The location enables him to have contact with his family. The rental property is furnished and it is the type of accommodation that NJH can have for life. If he loses it, that type of accommodation may not be available for him in the future.
NH does not believe CM and LM can guarantee NJH's longterm accommodation.
NH states that family contact has been limited by the distance required for NJH to travel. In addition SM is CM's sister and as a consequence, family have been restricted from visiting NJH due to a past dispute with SM.
NH maintains that NJH should return to the rental property but she would not force him to do so. However there are financial implications for NJH should he not live in the rental property.
NH would expect that if NJH returns to the rental property he would still be able to spend periods of respite with CM and LM.
NH states that NJH tends to live in the moment and is easily persuaded.
NH submits that SM should not be appointed guardian or administrator for NJH as she has heard nothing from her for 18 months.
According to NH there is no need to appoint the Public Advocate as guardian or the Public Trustee as administrator as she can continue to act in those roles.

RH

It is the view of RH that NH has acted as guardian and administrator with the best of intentions. She has done her utmost for NJH.
RH says that because of his disabilities NJH thinks of things in the shortterm and does not have the ability to plan for the longterm.
RH supports the ongoing appointment of NH but if it could be arranged then GH could take over these roles and this would enable NJH to maintain contact with his family.

MH

MH acknowledges the care that NH has provided NJH but agrees with RH and GH that NH should step aside from her role as guardian and administrator.
MH supports the appointment of GH as NJH's guardian and administrator.
MH says that she is unsure as to whether NJH should stay with CM and LM but notes that he does appear happy living with them.

GH

GH states that he has a reasonably strong bond with NJH which has developed over a number of years. He believes that NH has done a good job as guardian and administrator but that it is time for her to step down from those roles. GH proposes himself as guardian and administrator for NJH.
GH submits that SM should not be appointed as there is strong conflict between her and NH. He questions SM's motives.
GH states that if appointed he would want to have a conversation with NJH to find out why he no longer wants to live in the rental property. He is of the view that CM and LM are genuine but maintains that NJH needs to stay connected with his family.
GH states that he has not yet developed a fully formed view of what accommodation is in NJH's best interests but would give some weight to the longۣterm quality of the rental property.

CM and LM

CM and LM say they have known NJH for five years from previous respite care they have provided him. They are currently employed by the service agency to provide care and accommodation for NJH. He came into their care on 12 December 2016.
CM and LM state that they have had contact with NH as NJH's guardian and administrator and the service agency. They dispute that they have been gagged by the service agency in respect to these proceedings but were advised that they could be in a position of a conflict of interest.
CM and LM state that they are willing to care for NJH on a permanent basis. They are aware of the financial implications of NJH not returning to the rental property and are concerned that he only receives a small allowance from NH (NH says that NJH's allowance was reduced because of a change in his employment).
CM says that in his view NJH is able to make his own decisions. NJH still needs guidance, however issues can be discussed with him and he can be educated on matters that need deciding. NJH is said to be polite, is able to look after his own health matters and structures his own chores.
CM states that NJH has been consistent in his views about wanting to live with him and LM and is happy with the family life he is being given.
CM submits that the guardianship and administration orders should be revoked because they are no longer needed. LM has a different view in that she believes NJH's guardian should be changed and the role given to someone outside of his family.
LM mentions that NJH was happy to see his mother recently when she was in hospital.

SS

SS states that NJH receives annual funding of $170,000 and this is used for accommodation support, community access, visiting support and community participation. Currently CM and LM receive a reimbursement payment for looking after NJH. NJH is not currently receiving external services as CM and LM are providing all the necessary support.
SS states that in the near future there will need to be a transfer of NJH's support regime to the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS).
SS disputes what SM says about 'gagging' CM and LM from assisting NJH with his wish to have the guardianship and administration orders reviewed. He says that he simply advised LM to remain impartial. SS says that he tried without success to obtain individual advocacy for NJH for the Tribunal proceedings.
SS believes NH does have NJH's best interests at heart but that this may be different to what NJH wants from time to time.
SS submits that as long as NJH is protected then the particular accommodation he has is not critical.

Public Advocate

AC from the Office of the Public Advocate interviewed the main parties to this proceeding.
NH told AC that she has never been invited and encouraged to visit NJH where he currently lives with CM and LM. She believes that NJH does not visit his parents often enough. The biggest concern she has about the current accommodation is how longterm it will be. She believes that SM is a very controlling person.
LM told AC that when NJH has to deal with his family he becomes stressed and agitated.
CM told AC that NJH has developed significantly since living with CM's family. He does not believe that the service agency has adequately engaged with NJH.
SS told AC that the livein carer in the rental property resigned and no one has been employed since then. He is aware that NH wants NJH to return to the rental property. He believes that NH is not taking NJH's views into consideration although NH believes she is acting in his best interests. The service agency finds it very difficult to visit NJH's current accommodation with CM and LM due to its rural location.
CH told AC that SM should not be appointed as NJH's guardian. CH has been advised he is not welcome to visit NJH's current accommodation and he feels that his child has been taken from him. CH states that he and MH are still together as a couple. He would prefer his brother GH to be appointed NJH's guardian as he believes that NJH is very easily led. CH states that he once removed NJH from the care of LM and CM when NJH was on respite in 2012 because he found that NJH was left unattended and unsupervised.

GH told AC that he believes NH has done a great job as guardian for NJH but that it is time for her to step down. GH has a good relationship with NJH and would be willing to act as guardian.
AC states that NJH is a very different individual to the one brought to the attention of the Tribunal in 2012. He seems now to lead a healthy and productive lifestyle. He has his own room.
The view of AC is that NJH's current accommodation has achieved more for him in the past six months than previously when he lived in the rental property.
AC accepts that there are cost implications for NJH if he does not return to the rental property.
AC states that NJH has told him he wants to remain living with LM and CM and that NH wants him to return to the rental property. NJH hopes to gain local employment. NJH would like SM to be appointed his guardian if one continues to be required.
AC submits that the current guardianship and administration orders are not operating in NJH's best interests. A change is needed because of the conflict between those people most important in NJH's life.
AC submits that the Tribunal may need to consider the appointment of the Public Advocate as NJH's guardian.

Public Trustee

The Tribunal was provided with a written report from the Public Trustee. As administrator, NH is required to report to the Public Trustee on an annual basis (s 80(1) of the GA Act).
The Public Trustee reports that account number 4 for the year to 31 July 2016 filed by NH has been approved. It is noted that in the reporting period NJH received the disability support pension and income from employment. He had bank funds at the end of the period totalling $7,423.

Discussion

Under s 90 of the GA Act upon a review of a guardianship order or administration order, the Tribunal may as it considers necessary in the best interests of NJH, confirm the order; amend the order; revoke the order or revoke the order and substitute another order for it; revoke the appointment of any guardian or administrator; appoint a new or additional guardian or administrator or appoint an alternate guardian.
When guardianship and administration orders are made the Tribunal first has to make a finding of incapacity.
The 'tests' concerning capacity are found in s 43 (guardianship) and s 64 (administration) of the GA Act.
In the orders made by the Tribunal on 27 February 2013, 21 July 2014, 20 January 2016 and 19 January 2017, findings of incapacity were made.
In the orders under current review, the guardianship order made on 21 July 2014 and the administration order made on 19 January 2017, findings of incapacity were made as follows.
For guardianship, NJH was found to be incapable of looking after his own health and safety; unable to make reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to his person and in need of oversight, care, or control in the interests of his own health and safety or for the protection of others.
For administration, NJH was found to be unable by reason of a mental disability to make reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to all of his estate.
These findings were not challenged at the time by the parties, for example by anyone involved in the proceedings seeking a review by the Full Tribunal under s 17A of the GA Act.
Once the finding of incapacity was made, the Tribunal was then required to decide whether NJH was in need of guardianship and administration orders, or whether his needs could be met by other means less restrictive of his freedom of decision and action (s 4(4) of the GA Act).
The Tribunal ultimately decided that orders were needed (s 43(1)(c) and s 64(1)(b) of the GA Act).
It now seems that some of the people involved in the NJH's life (including NJH himself), are saying that he should not have a guardian or administrator.
In putting this to the Tribunal these people are either saying that NJH is capable (he can make his own decisions) or if he is not capable, then despite this he is not in need of a guardian and administrator.
For example, CM believes that with guidance and discussion NJH can make his own personal and financial decisions. He bases that view on his experience with NJH particularly since December 2016 when NJH came to live with him and LM.
SM seems to have the same view and although AC does not necessarily agree, but says that NJH is a different person than the one who presented to the Tribunal in 2012.
The other people involved in the hearing seem to say that NJH is still in need of a guardian and an administrator, however they cannot agree on who they should be.
NJH said in his application for review of the orders (and for which he was assisted by SM) that he wanted a different guardian, but in his oral evidence said that he now does not need a guardian or administrator.
NJH also said that his GP has referred him for a neuropsychological assessment so as to get a better idea of what are his strengths and weaknesses regarding his decisionmaking.
It must be remembered that the principal conditions with which NJH has been diagnosed and which seem still to be relevant are Autism, borderline (or mild) intellectual functioning and ADHD. Those conditions continue to be stated in the most recent report of the GP and there is no medical evidence to say that NJH does not have these conditions.
The question is, to what extent do these conditions continue to impact on NJH's decision making and functioning.
No one is suggesting that NJH is able to currently live independently or make his own way in the world without significant guidance and support.
In a general sense then, it is not controversial to say that if left to his own devices NJH would not be able to look after his own health and safety (s 43(1)(b)(i) of the GA Act). From that it follows that NJH is also in need of oversight and care in the interests of his health and safety (s 43(1)(b)(iii) of the GA Act).
I am satisfied this is the case and that NJH meets those particular requirements for the making of a guardianship order.
Typically the question of a person's capacity is also related to what decisions need to be made.
The apparent trigger for the review of the guardianship order is the decision about where and with whom it is best that NJH lives. Currently there are two clear alternatives: that he remains living with CM and LM, or that he return to the rental property with a fulltime (livein) carer. There may of course be other alternatives in the future.
NJH has made it clear that he wants to remain living with CM and LM. However, a wish is not the same as saying that NJH is able to make a reasonable judgment about his accommodation particularly when the decision has implications for his future.
As his guardian NH has a preference that NJH return to the rental property. Others have differing views as the evidence indicates.
I agree with NH that it is more likely than not that NJH places the most emphasis on his current circumstances when deciding what he wants and that he assesses things in the shortterm. I am satisfied that NJH's diagnosed conditions impact and exacerbate this tendency (or inability) to consider the longterm implications of what he wants to do and this makes him vulnerable and impressionable.
This is very difficult for NJH at best but more so when he has the important people in his life competing for his attention about what is in his best interests.
I am concerned that NJH cannot protect his own interests in such circumstances and that he is therefore not in a position to make a reasonable judgment about it.
The same applies in my view to two other personal matters of significance that have arisen in this proceeding, namely the support services to which NJH should have access and the contact he should have with his family.
The availability of services will eventually be governed by the NDIS and this will be a significant transition from the current arrangements. It will require strong advocacy and an understanding of the NDIS processes.
As regards NJH's contact with his family, he currently has strong views on his feelings of safety with his family. The family also has strong views on the need to have ongoing contact with him.
I am not convinced that NJH is able to adequately protect himself in such a pressured situation.
I therefore consider in NJH's current best interests that a guardian be appointed in the areas of accommodation, services and contact (s 4(2) and s 43(1)(c) of the GA Act).
There may be other matters which arise such as whether NJH should work or receive further education or training however, in my view, they are at least in part dependent on where he is to live and may be able to be worked through informally.
The current guardianship order gives NH the authority to make treatment (medical) decisions for NJH. There was a lack of evidence at the hearing about how treatment decisions are currently made for NJH other than the GP's assessment that he is not able to make reasonable decisions about such matters. Given NJH's complex medical profile, it seems to me that it is in his current best interests to maintain that function in a guardianship order.
In making a guardianship order the question that next arises is who should be appointed. There are three people proposed, NH, GH and SM. I accept these are all important people in the NJH's life.
It is the wish of NJH that SM be appointed.
There are two things that, in my view, work against these proposed appointments. First SM, NH and GH appear to have established firm and perhaps fixed views about NJH's accommodation and about contact with his family. Secondly (and related to the first) they have strong negative views about each other, in particular SM against NH and GH and NH and GH against SM. It is also the case that GH believes NH should now step aside from her role as guardian and administrator.
These negative views which also to some extent implicate CM and LM, work against the requirement of a guardian to consult with and consider the views of all the important people in NJH's life to ensure a balanced assessment of what is in his best interests. I am not satisfied that such a balanced assessment will occur with any of the proposed appointees.
I must therefore appoint the Public Advocate as NJH's guardian (s 44(5) of the GA Act).
The functions to be given to the guardian are to make decisions about NJH's accommodation, his medical treatment, the services to which he should have access and the contact he should have with others.
As regards NJH's finances (his estate), I am satisfied that the conditions with which he is currently diagnosed constitute a mental disability for the purposes of the GA Act (s 3 and s 64(1)(a) of the GA Act).
Although NJH's estate is relatively uncomplicated comprising bank funds and an entitlement to a Centrelink payment, the same concerns I have expressed regarding the difficulties in personal decisionmaking also apply in my view to the management of his money. The most recent report of the GP continues to assess NJH as incapable of making reasonable decisions about his estate. It is also the case that NJH has only needed to account for a small allowance that he is given and has not had to consider the longterm management of his finances including bill paying.
I am satisfied that NJH remains in need of an administrator for the present time (s 64(1) of the GA Act).
For the same reasons I have decided not to appoint either of SM, NH or GH as guardian, I am unable to appoint any of them as NJH's administrator. In addition, under s 68(3)(a) of the GA Act, a proposed administrator needs to be compatible with an appointed guardian. That is, the guardian and administrator need to be able to work together. For instance, when the guardian makes the primary decision about where NJH is to live, they must be confident that the administrator will meet the financial obligations associated with that decision. I cannot be confident that would happen with the proposed appointees who, as I have already mentioned, appear to have rather fixed views on that matter.
I accept that it is NJH's wish that SM be appointed however, I consider it in his current best interests that the Public Trustee be appointed his administrator (s 4(2) and s 68 of the GA Act).
The order will give plenary authority to the administrator and continue with the current gifting authority of $300 per annum.
I have decided to set a review date of 12 months for review of the guardianship and administration orders for the following reason.
As already mentioned, NJH has advised that his GP has referred him for a neuropsychological assessment. This has been confirmed by the Tribunal. If the referral is accepted by the relevant agency, Neurosciences, then generally speaking there is a waiting list of six months.
The guardianship and administration orders have therefore been made for a term sufficient to enable important decisions to be made in a timely manner, but also to acknowledge that a specialist assessment of NJH's capacity will likely become available during the term of the order. Depending on what the assessment says when it becomes available, it is open for NJH (or someone on his behalf), or the guardian or administrator, to seek an earlier review of the orders.

Orders

The Tribunal declares that the represented person, [NJH];
(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,
(c)is incapable of looking after his own health and safety;
(d)is unable to make reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to his person;
(e)is in need of oversight, care or control in the interests of his own health and safety; and
(f)is in need of a guardian,

and the Tribunal orders that:
The administration order dated 19 January 2017 is revoked and an order in the following terms is substituted for it:
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 Act.
2.The administrator is authorised to expend up to a total amount of $300 per annum on gifts on behalf of the represented person.
The guardianship order dated 20 January 2017 is revoked and an order in the following terms is substituted for it:
3.The Public Advocate of David Malcolm Justice Centre, Level 23, 28 Barrack Street, 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)Subject to Division 3 of Part 5 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990, to make treatment decisions for the represented person;
(d)To determine what contact, if any, the represented person should have with others and the extent of that contact; and
(e)To determine the services to which the represented person should have access.

4.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.
5.The administration and guardianship orders are to be reviewed by 16 June 2018.

I certify that this and the preceding [132] paragraphs comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
___________________________________
MR J MANSVELD, SENIOR MEMBER