NN (Review Guardianship) - [2010] TASGAB 15

GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION BOARD
HOBART

NN – an application by the Public Guardian to review a guardianship order

Neutral citation: NN (Review Guardianship) [2010] TASGAB 15

REASONS FOR DECISION

Anita Smith (President)
Kim Barker (Member)
Catherine Gavan (Member)

Hearing: 10 August 2010

Review of Guardianship – requirement upon guardian to report – whether guardian is required to submit files notes and correspondence with a report – performance of the guardian according to the National Standards of Public Guardianship – expectations of a guardian to visit annually, to inform represented persons of their rights and to make adequate file notes of discussions – revocation of the guardianship order

Guardianship and Administration Act 1995 ss 6, 25, 27, 66, 67
United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Article 12(4)
National Standards of Public Guardianship as endorsed 2001 and 2009

NN became the subject of a full guardianship order on 18 July 2008. At the time of the initial hearing she had been hospitalised using the authority of an emergency guardianship order pursuant to section 65 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1995 (‘the Act’). When the application when presented to the Board NN was almost 90 years of age, living independently and experiencing a range of physical and mental health problems but neglecting basic self care such as hygiene and refusing services for the provision of care.
This statement of reasons relates to an application made by the Public Guardian to revoke the order made on 18 July 2008. While the question of whether the order was still needed was relatively simple, the Board made a number of observations to the Public Guardian about the standards of service delivery of that office and the professionalism of its reporting. Additionally the Public Guardian raised some interpretive arguments about section 66 of the Act which have required determination. For those reasons, the Board has elected to record its decision and reasons in a statement of reasons.
The Responsibilities of a Guardian:
A guardian must observe the principles set out in the Act, which means that when the guardian is acting under the powers of the order, the guardian must perform his or her duties so that:
(a) the means which is the least restrictive of a person's freedom of decision and action as is possible in the circumstances is adopted,
(b) the best interests of a person with a disability or in respect of whom an application is made under this Act are promoted, and
(c) the wishes of a person with a disability or in respect of whom an application is made under this Act are, if possible, carried into effect.[1]
[1] Section 6 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1995 (Tas)
The Public Guardian was appointed as a full guardian for NN which means that the Public Guardian had all the powers and duties which she would have in Tasmania if she was a parent and NN was her child[2]. In particular these powers include the power[3]:
(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 decide whether the represented person should or should not be permitted to work and if so, the nature or type of work; for whom and any related matters,
(d) to restrict visits to a represented person to such extent as may be necessary in his or her best interests and to prohibit visits by any person if the guardian reasonably believes that they would have an adverse effect on the represented person, and
(e) consent to any health care (except special treatment[4]) that is in the best interests of the represented person and to refuse or withdraw consent to any such treatment.
[2] Section 25(1) of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1995 (Tas)
[3] Section 25(2) of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1995 (Tas)
[4] See Part 6 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1995 (Tas)
In addition to describing the types of decisions a guardian may make and the principles he or she must observe, in section 27 the Act provides guidance about the manner in which a guardian must exercise his or her authority:[5]
(1) A guardian must act at all times in the best interests of the person under guardianship.
(2) Without limiting subsection (1), a guardian acts in the best interests of a person under guardianship if the guardian acts as far as possible:
(a) in consultation with that person, taking into account, as far as possible, his or her wishes,
(b) as an advocate for that person,
(c) in such a way as to encourage that person to participate as much as possible in the life of the community,
(d) in such a way as to encourage and assist that person to become capable of caring for himself or herself and of making reasonable judgements relating to his or her person, and
(e) in such a way as to protect that person from neglect, abuse or exploitation.
[5] Section 27 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1995 (Tas)
The guardian must provide a written report to the Board once in every 12 months of appointment. The report must detail the circumstances of the represented person and any other details as required by the Board.[6]
[6] Section 66 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1995 (Tas)
Although it is not specified in the Act, one would expect that the Public Guardian ought to be the model guardian and perform to the highest standards of guardianship as befits an agency of the State charged with special responsibilities to protect some of the most vulnerable members of our community. Relevantly, the Australian Guardianship and Administration Council (formerly a ‘Committee’), a voluntary association which includes the heads of agency of all Australian equivalents of the Tasmanian Public Guardian as well as heads of relevant tribunals and heads of public trustee agencies, has endorsed the National Standards of Public Guardianship (hereafter called ‘the National Standards’).
The National Standards were endorsed by the (then) Committee in 2001. An updated standard was adopted by a meeting of the Council in October 2009 (including the present Public Guardian for Tasmania). The introduction to the latest National Standards states:
“The National Standards of Public Guardianship were initially endorsed by the Australian Guardianship and Administration Committee in 2001. The standards provide the minimum expectations of guardianship staff in making substitute decisions on behalf of people with decision-making disabilities whose guardian is the Public Guardian/Advocate.
The standards have provided a baseline benchmark and framework that has informed the development of standards by each jurisdiction.” (emphasis added)
The standards reflect the expectations of a guardian set out in sections 6 and 27 of the Act, as well as a practical level of communication, accountability and transparency that would be expected of any modern Government funded service. As such, they describe the standard of performance that the Board expects when appointing a guardian for a represented person. The standards have no force of law, but they do provide a useful benchmark from which to judge the performance of the guardian against the Board’s expectations at the time of appointment.
Communications between the Public Guardian and the Board regarding an annual report caused the Board to question whether baseline benchmarks had been met in the guardianship relationship between NN and the Public Guardian. The Board will first consider the sufficiency of the Public Guardian’s reporting in this matter and then consider whether an appropriate standard of Public Guardianship has been met in the performance of the terms of the order.
Requirements upon the Guardian to Report to the Board:
Section 66 of the Act states:
(1) The Board must at least once in each period of 12 months obtain and consider a written report on the circumstances of each person who is subject to a guardianship order or administration order, including such details as the Board may require as to the guardianship or administration from –
(a)the administrator or guardian or both; and
(b)such other person as the Board may determine.

(2) An administrator, guardian or other person referred to in subsection (1) must, within 14 days after receiving a notice requiring him or her to do so or within such further period as the Board may allow, furnish the Board with a written report on the circumstances of a person who is subject to a guardianship order or administration order giving such particulars in respect of that person as the Board may require.
(3) An administrator, guardian or other person who contravenes subsection (2) is guilty of an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding 10 penalty units.

Unfortunately, the Board did not request an annual report in 2009. Indeed there was no communication from the Public Guardian to the Board about NN from August 2008 until 30 June 2010. On 30 June the Board’s investigation officer emailed the Public Guardian noting that no report had been requested in 2009 and noting that the 2010 report was due before 18 July 2010. The Investigation Officer’s email stated:
“You can report now if you wish or I will contact you again in about mid July”
The Public Guardian responded the same day:
“I advise that the last decision made in relation to NN was in March 2009 (consented to her move to XXXXX ). She has had a number of falls since that time which I have been advised about. Her health continues to decline but there have been no medical decisions that have needed to be made in the past year.”
No indication was given that this email was not intended as a report. Therefore in response to that ‘report,’ and in an attempt to ascertain the circumstances of NN’ case including the standard of guardianship that had been applied, on 1 July 2010 the President made the following requirements of the Public Guardian (hereafter called ‘the requirement’):
“Pursuant to section 66(1) & (2) of the Act, the Board requires you to provide to the Board within 14 days a written report on the circumstances of the represented person specifically addressing the following particulars:
(a) Was information provided to the represented person and other key people in her life in accordance with the National Standards of Public Guardianship? Please provide copies of any relevant correspondence or file notes recording the provision of that information.
(b) On how many occasions have you visited the represented person since appointment? Please provide file notes of any such visits.
(c) How many discussions or consultations have you had with the represented person since appointment? Please provide file notes of any such discussions or consultations.
(d) Which medical and other professionals have been consulted in the decision making processes? Please provide file notes of any such consultations.
(e) Did the represented person object to the decision(s) that you made, and if so what attempts did you make to ascertain the reasons for the objection?
(f) How did you satisfy yourself that the decision you made represented the least restrictive alternative for the represented person?
(g) How did you communicate each decision to the represented person and the people involved in her life? Please provide copies of file notes or correspondence communicating those decisions.
(h) Have you satisfied yourself that the order continues to represent the best interests of the person? If so, have you given consideration to seeking a review of the order in accordance with National Standards of Public Guardianship?
(i) Has the case of this represented person been the subject of regular six monthly case reviews within your office? Please provide copies of file notes of such reviews.
As you are aware, the National Standards of Public Guardianship do not have the force of law, but do set out the agreed minimum standard for agencies with a statutory mandate for guardianship as approved by the Australian Guardianship and Administration Council in 2001 and updated since that time.
The Board approves of those standards as minimum standards and expects that Tasmanian guardians will meet those standards. The Board expects that future annual reports from your office will address decision-making within the framework of these standards, similarly to points (a)-(i) above.”
The Public Guardian responded to the requirement by email to the Registrar on 8 July 2010 as follows:
“I have received a letter from Anita about NN. I am making the assumption it was sent in error as we haven’t yet submitted a report to the GAB about NN! (It isn’t due til 18 July – we will try to get it to you as close as we can to that date but as you probably realise we are really understaffed at present and are really doing the best we can in very stretched circumstances). I simply sent a quick comment to Lee [the Board’s Investigation Officer] about the state of play with NN (foreshadowing a revocation application), but will obviously prepare the usual pro forma report when I have a chance to get to it (and when the phone stops ringing from the dozens and dozens of people or their families who are calling to discuss their Enduring Guardian nomination and the letter drafted by the Solicitor General’s office that we have now sent to everyone!!)”
To which the President responded on 9 July 2010:
“Your email report was taken to be your report as there was no indication otherwise. Please comply with the requirement in the letter.”
On 14 July, the Board received a lengthy report from the Public Guardian in the “usual format” but which neglected to directly respond to the requirement. The Board also received an application by the Public Guardian to review the guardianship order. The parties were sent a notice of hearing on 21 July 2010 to attend a hearing on 5 August 2010.
On 5 August 2010 the Public Guardian indicated that she was not ready to proceed on her own application to review the order because she had not yet received legal advice sought from the Solicitor General about the Board’s capacity to make the requirement. Therefore the Board adjourned to 10 August 2010 at 2.00 p.m. for her to obtain that advice.
At 11.00 a.m. on 10 August 2010 the Public Guardian emailed the Board as follows:
“In response to your letter of 1 July 2010 I advise that:
(a) see para 4 of Living, Family and Health section of report of 12 July as to information provided;
(b) 7;
(c) 7;
(d) Adam Micallef, Dr Max Jacobs, Dr Bijou Thomas, Dr Keith McArthur, Dr Jane Tolman, Dr Ang Giap Kian, Dr Bakas, Paul Plummer, Luella Tria, Dr Ridgers;
(e) Initially she objected to going to hospital for assessment. She had no further objections to decisions about accommodation (except on one occasion where she stated she would like to live in England but could not express a view about any other options);
(f) Decisions made were the only available options;
(g) Decisions made about NN were communicated in person and these decisions were also discussed and communicated via email to her family;
(h) No – review is sought now;
(i) This file has been managed by three different guardians, and each time the guardian changed there has been discussion and review of the file. Additionally, the file was reviewed for the preparation of the report for the GAB.
It is our submission that this Office is not required to furnish documents in connection with the giving of an annual report and therefore we will not be doing so.”

Is the guardian required to submit correspondence and file notes to the Board?

The Public Guardian argued that it was ultra vires for the Board to require the production of correspondence and file notes pursuant to section 66. She argued that the words ‘such details as the Board may require’ and ‘such particulars in respect of that person as the Board may require’ would not include the provision of documents from the Public Guardian’s file. She noted that her objection to the provision of the documents was not based on any privacy concerns and that there would be no prohibition on the guardian providing those documents to the Board if the guardian chose to do so, but that the objection was limited to the assertion that the requirement was ultra vires. The Public Guardian did not advance any case law or other arguments to support that assertion.
The Board suggested that it had a power to demand such documents in a hearing, but the Public Guardian stated that she would need to seek legal advice on that point. In any event no documents were produced to the Board.
The Board had three reasons for viewing file notes and correspondence as mentioned in the requirement. Firstly, the Board wanted to ascertain whether the Public Guardian was adhering to the National Standards with respect to communications with represented persons, key persons in their lives, service providers and health care practitioners. The standards require communication of information that not only empowers persons under guardianship, but it also establishes clear boundaries as to the authority and activity of the guardian.
Secondly, the Board held concerns about the style of communications from the Public Guardian; that is whether the informal style of communication as demonstrated in the email dated 8 July 2010 was limited to communications with the Board or whether that was the usual standard of email communication with all parties. Communication is a key skill of a guardian. A lack of communication or an excessively informal style of communication may undermine the work of a guardian.
Thirdly, the Board was concerned that the Public Guardian ought to keep adequate file notes and be sufficiently transparent and accountable through those file notes as would be expected of the holder of a statutory office acting on behalf of vulnerable persons. The Board is the only independent entity which has any effective oversight of the exercise of the broad and potentially intrusive powers granted by the Board to the guardian. In a case, such as this one, where multiple persons have assumed the role of a guardian, file notes have particular importance. Viewing the file notes would have established for the Board whether the exercise of the guardian’s powers was being appropriately recorded and provided a better understanding of how and why such powers were being used.
These concerns could most easily be addressed by production of the contemporaneous correspondence and file notes. Production of them in accordance with the requirement would have reduced the degree of detail required in a report.
Section 66 of the Act sets out the reporting requirements of guardians and administrators. With respect to administrators, section 63 also applies. Section 63 has an additional requirement that the administrator furnish the Board with a statement of the accounts of the estate in a form approved by the Board and also ‘such other particulars relating to the estate as the Board may require.’ The Board has interpreted the words ‘such details,’ ‘such particulars’ and ‘such other particulars’ in sections 63 and 66 to include the ability to require administrators to provide verification of their statements by way of copies of statements from financial institutions, invoices, receipts and other primary documents. This is consistent with the Board’s duty to examine a statement of accounts. Subsections 63(1)(c), 66(1) and (2) of the Act are the only means to compel an administrator to provide that verification.
If the Board accepts the Public Guardian’s argument, that the ‘details’ and ‘particulars’ that the Board can require do not include copies of correspondence and file notes, then it would also have to accept that it must examine a statement of accounts by an administrator without access to verifying information. This would make performance of that duty very difficult and possibly futile. It would require that the Board convene a review hearing (or in the case of an administrator a hearing under section 63(5)) of the Act and require such documents using the powers in subsections 11(8) or (11) of the Act which is cumbersome and inefficient.

It is notable that, although the Tasmanian Parliament modelled the legislation on the Guardianship and Administration Act 1986 (Vic), the Guardianship Act 1987 (NSW), the Guardianship and Management of Property Act 1991 (ACT) and the Guardianship and Administration Act 1993 (SA), the Act deviated from those models in including a requirement that a guardian report annually to the Board. Other jurisdictions require that an administrator reports but not a guardian. Clearly this was a matter that was of particular importance to the Tasmanian Parliament.
The reporting function has become increasingly important since Australia ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (‘the Convention’) and the Optional Protocol. Article 12(4) of the Convention provides that:

“States Parties shall ensure that all measures that relate to the exercise of legal capacity provide for appropriate and effective safeguards to prevent abuse in accordance with international human rights law. Such safeguards shall ensure that measures relating to the exercise of legal capacity respect the rights, will and preferences of the person, are free of conflict of interest and undue influence, are proportional and tailored to the person’s circumstances, apply for the shortest time possible and are subject to regular review by a competent, independent and impartial authority or judicial body. The safeguards shall be proportional to the degree to which such measures affect the person’s rights and interests.” (emphasis added)
The Board considers that receipt and consideration of reports is a part of its review function and that such a review function is not limited to monitoring the existence of the order but also its operation. For example if the Board is dissatisfied with the contents of a report by a guardian or administrator it can, of its own motion, provide advice and direction pursuant to sections 31(4) and 61(4) or it can review the order pursuant to section 67(a) of the Act.
In terms of the safeguards, one of which is the reporting condition, being proportional to the degree to which the order affected NN’ rights and interests, it is relevant to note that the order made by the Board was a full order which gave the guardian all the powers and duties which she would have in Tasmania if she was a parent and NN was her child[7]. Such an order is particularly invasive of NN’ rights and interests.
[7] Section 25(1) of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1995 (Tas)
The Board determines that it is appropriate to require an administrator or guardian to provide verificatory information including documents and file notes to substantiate statements made in their reports. The Board does not accept that the requirement to produce such information is ultra vires. The argument is circular in any event because where a guardian or administrator refuses or fails to provide such documentation, the Board may convene a review hearing pursuant to section 67(a), 31(4) or 61(4) to compel the production of such documents.
The Public Guardian chose not to comply with the requirement of the Board by refusing to produce verificatory documents specifically requested. She also appeared uncertain about the Board’s powers to compel production of documents at a hearing. Nothing in the material presented to the Board would support a conclusion that adequate records have been kept or that the guardianship has been discharged in accordance with the National Standards in this respect.

Did the Public Guardian comply with the National Standards?

In the review hearing, the Public Guardian questioned the legal basis of the National Standards and the assertion that they were minimum standards. She asserted that they were aspirational standards created as a document to assist in lobbying auspicing Departments for more funding. She also reported that the Department has recently provided more funding to enable the Office to comply with the standards.
Information Related to Requirement (a):
The 2001 and the 2009 National Standards provided:
“Staff making Guardianship decisions will ensure that:
1. Information is made available to the Represented Person and other key people in their life about
·     The role of their office
·     The principles of the legislation
·     Their authority in respect of the Represented Person
·     Customer services standards
·     How to make a complaint
·     How to apply for a review of an Order
·     Other complaints processes
·     Freedom of Information provisions
·     How to appeal a decision.
2. Information about substitute consent and the Guardian’s authority in respect of the Represented Person is provided to medical and dental practitioners providing services to the Represented Person.”
The Public Guardian’s report noted:
“Upon appointment, we visited NN and wrote to NN’s three children and sought their views about accommodation and health options for their mother. NN maintained that she was deaf so all communication took place through exchange of notes. The role of a guardian was explained to her, along with the reasons an application was made and how we would act under the order.”
At the hearing the Public Guardian said she was unable to ‘decipher’ from the notes on file whether NN was informed about matters other than the first 3 dot points in the standards. The Board interprets from that admission that either the file notes were not sufficiently clear to record what was discussed, or that matters other than the first 3 dot points in the standards were not conveyed to NN. Given that NN ‘maintained that she was deaf’ and communicated only in writing, a standard letter conveying the information to her would have been ideal. Unfortunately, the Public Guardian indicated at the hearing that, although a requirement to communicate this information had been a part of the National Standards for 9 years, such letters were still being developed. The Public Guardian also indicated that problems with her IT system were hampering that development.
Information Related to Requirements (b) and (c):
The Public Guardian confirmed that the emails to NN’ children did not address matters other than the first 3 dot points in the standards.
The National Standards require that a guardian: “Make personal contact with the Represented Person a minimum of one visit each year.” The Public Guardian noted that NN had been visited 7 times during the period of guardianship. One of those occasions was following the receipt of the requirement on 1 July 2010. The remaining 6 visits were prior to March 2009.
NN was not visited for a period of 15 months. According to the Public Guardian’s report, in that 15 months she received reports from the nursing home staff that NN had several falls and that they were considering the possible need for chemical restraint. The guardian had also been asked to comment on NN’ end of life decisions during this time. The Public Guardian told the Board that, at times, the guardian came close to issuing directions in that period, but each time avoided doing so. It is clear that up until the guardian found a suitable nursing home place for NN in March 2009, NN was visited frequently. However once she was placed in a nursing home, visits ceased until the requirement was issued by the Board. The Board concludes that there was also no telephone or written contact with NN from March 2009 until July 2010.
The Public Guardian noted that recently NN is highly disturbed by unfamiliar persons in her room and that a visit would have caused distress. The Board accepts that there is a need for sensitivity, but this must be balanced against a need to independently verify information given by the nursing home on important matters, such as fall prevention, chemical restraint and end-of-life decisions. This is especially so for a person like NN who is particularly vulnerable because of her ‘behavioural issues’ which included antagonistic responses to the provision of hygiene and care. In circumstances where a visit will cause a represented person undue distress, a guardian could still observe the represented person or inspect the premises where they live as a means to meet this condition. The represented person lived in a nursing home that was easily accessible to the staff of the Office of the Public Guardian.
Apart from a refusal to provide documents in accordance with the requirement, the Board took no issue with the Public Guardian’s responses to requirements (d), (e), (f) and (g).

Information Related to Requirements (h) and (i):

The 2001 and 2009 National Standards require that a guardian requests ‘a review of the current Order by the Board or Tribunal if at any time there is a need to extend, review or revoke the powers given under the Order or the Order is not working in the best interests of the Represented Person.’ Requirement (h) addressed this standard. The Public Guardian’s written response and comments at the hearing confirmed that there is no systematic internal review of ongoing guardianship orders as might be expected under the Standards and that the current review was prompted by the Board’s intervention.

The National Standards 2009 require that:
“The case of a represented person will be reviewed on a six monthly basis either in individual supervision or in professional team meetings.”
The Public Guardian stated that she will be starting a system of systemic 6 monthly reviews of guardianship cases. However she said that the practice to date was an ‘ad hoc’ practice of discussing cases in staff meetings. The Board concludes that the Public Guardian has not practised according to that standard since the standard was endorsed in October 2009.

Information Related to National Standards for Record Keeping:

The 2001 and 2009 National Standards state:
“Recording Information
Staff making Guardianship decisions will
·     Record major Guardianship decisions including timeframes[8], conditions and the reasons for them
·     Record significant information obtained
·     Record significant details or contacts made and decisions taken.”
[8] The 2009 National Standards also include here ‘the views of the represented person and other relevant parties’
The inference that the Board drew from the Public Guardian’s refusal to provide file notes and correspondence is set out above. File note keeping is especially important in this case as the Public Guardian noted that three different officers have had carriage of the file in 2 years. The Public Guardian said she was unable to ‘decipher’ from the existing file notes of a previous guardian whether aspects of the National Standards had been complied with. The Board concludes therefore that if file notes were kept, they were not consistent and not sufficiently accurate as to provide a proper record of activities in connection with the represented person.

Conclusion:

The Board came to the conclusion from her evidence that the Public Guardian’s performance fell short of the National Standards applicable during the period of this guardianship order in a number of material respects:
(i)Recording information,
(ii)Communicating information about customer service standards, grievance, review and appeal processes to the represented person and key persons in her life,
(iii)Visiting the represented person on a minimum annual basis, and
(iv)Reviewing the represented person’s case on a six monthly basis and systematically applying for variation of the order where indicated.
The Public Guardian indicated that she saw the National Standards as aspirational but not necessarily applicable to her. She indicated that her office is unable to create basic documents or templates because of deficiencies in her IT systems. She also said that she will soon implement aspects of the National Standards into the work of her office. It is clear that until this point, the Public Guardian has concluded the resource issues prevent or excuse her from compliance with the National Standards. The Public Guardian told the Board during the hearing that if her office was required to adhere to the National Standards then it would have to decline to allocate certain cases because it will not have the resources to apply to all clients, by which the Board understood her to be saying that the office would decline to discharge any guardianship duties for those unallocated cases.
The Board does not consider that the requirements of the National Standards are particularly onerous or require any technology more sophisticated than a basic word processing program and a well organised diary. They simply require some systematic approaches to the responsibilities of a guardian and a commitment to attaining the minimum standards. It is disappointing that the Tasmanian Public Guardian aspires to but does not think it possible to attain a standard that the rest of the country considers to be the minimum standard or a baseline benchmark.
This does not mean that the Public Guardian has breached any law (apart from a refusal to comply with a requirement by the Board), but it does mean that the Board will need to clarify, in future orders, the standards that it expects of a guardian when it appoints the Public Guardian. Additionally the Public Guardian will need to identify which, if any standards, it proposes not to meet if appointed and seek to be relieved of the requirement to comply.
As stated above, the National Standards reflect the expectations of a guardian imposed by sections 6 and 27 of the Act. If a guardian is not meeting the National Standards it is highly likely that they would also not be meeting their duties in sections 6 and 27.

The Public Guardian’s Annual Reports:

In effect the Board received 3 reports concerning NN from the Public Guardian for the 12 months to July 2010. Two (30 June 2010 and 10 August 2010) were by email and were extremely brief. The written report dated 14 July 2010 was more extensive but much of the material was in the form of a narrative rather than addressing the exercise of the guardian’s authority. A long report which does not address the key points requires additional effort by both the guardian to write and the Board to read, without much benefit for the represented person. An efficient report ought to summarise narrative details unless they relate to the exercise of the guardian’s authority but also provide sufficient information that will guide the Board to an understanding of how the guardian’s authority has been used during the reporting period.
Again the Board does not consider that the Public Guardian has breached any law (apart from a refusal to comply with a requirement by the Board), but it does mean that the Board will need to clarify, in future orders, the reporting standards that it expects of a guardian when it appoints the Public Guardian.

The application to revoke the order:

The Public Guardian gave evidence that NN is in an end-of-life stage. In investigating the arrangements at the request of the nursing home, the Public Guardian discovered a document where NN had recorded some end-of-life wishes and in which she delegated decision making responsibility to her daughter, QU. Apparently during the period of guardianship the relationship between NN and her daughter had improved and QU is now prepared to act as a ‘person responsible’ and carry out NN’ instructions.
According to the Public Guardian the only decisions that remain to be made for NN are medical treatment decisions. QU, as a close relative of NN qualifies as a ‘person responsible,’ and will therefore have authority to consent to medical treatment.
In these circumstances, the order is no longer being actively used or required and therefore no longer represents the option that is least restrictive of NN’ freedom of decision and action. Accordingly, the Board revokes the order.

Conclusion:

After hearing a review of a guardianship order made on the 18 July 2008 appointing the Public Guardian as the guardian of NN the Board was satisfied that NN is no longer in need of a guardian

THE BOARD ORDERS that the guardianship order is revoked.

Anita Smith Kim Barker Catherine Gavan

PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER

Statement of Reasons delivered: 20 August 2010.