PA - [2011] WASAT 150

JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

STREAM: HUMAN RIGHTS

ACT: GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1990 (WA)

CITATION: PA [2011] WASAT 150

MEMBER: MR J MANSVELD (MEMBER)

HEARD: 28 JUNE 2011

DELIVERED : 13 SEPTEMBER 2011

FILE NO/S: GAA 188 of 2011
GAA 1682 of 2011

BETWEEN: PA
Represented Person

Catchwords:

Guardianship Administration Represented person has a severe and chronic mental illness Need for a guardian Needs of proposed guardian not in conflict with the represented person's needs Need for an administrator Represented person to benefit from regular reviews of orders Orders made

Legislation:

Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), s 4, s 4(2)(c), s 4(2)(d), s 43, s 43(1)(b), s 44, s 44(1)(b), s 44(2)(a) (d), s 51, s 64(1)(a), s 84, s 97(1)(b)(i), s 97(1)(b)(ii), Sch 5 cl 4, Pt 5 Div 3, Pt 9C
Mental Health Act 1996 (WA)
Public Trustee Act 1941 (WA), s 36C
State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 54

Result:

Guardian and administrator appointed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Represented Person : N/A

Solicitors:

Represented Person : N/A

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

Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:

Summary of Tribunal's decision

Applications for guardianship and administration orders were made for a 39yearold man who suffered from a severe and chronic mental illness.
The man had spent many years in a psychiatric hospital and had moved to a community based home, living with others and receiving 24 hour support and supervision.
The application for guardianship had been made by the man's mother because she felt unsupported by the medical and care teams and wanted the authority of a guardianship order to make decisions for her son.
The medical and care teams were of the view that the mother was not making sound decisions for her son and proposed the appointment of the Public Advocate as the man's guardian. The teams felt that the mother was not able to make objective decisions for her son and was undermining the community placement. The teams were concerned that the mother continued to support the psychiatric hospital as the preferred accommodation for her son. The teams submitted that the mother's interests were in conflict with those of her son.
The Tribunal found that although strongly oppositional at times, the mother advocated in her son's best interests. The Tribunal was satisfied that the mother accepted that the son could not return to the psychiatric hospital except when he was acutely unwell. The Tribunal found that a conflict of interest did not exist.
The Tribunal appointed the mother limited guardian because it was satisfied that she would act in the best interests of her son given her strong views about his personhood and her profound understanding of him as his parent.
The Public Trustee was appointed the man's administrator. That appointment was supported by all the parties.

Background

PA is a 39yearold man who suffers from a chronic, treatment resistant mental illness. He spent many years in a psychiatric hospital and from late 2009 has lived in a community house where he receives 24 hour care and supervision.
An application for a guardianship order for PA has been made by his mother RH.
This matter was first heard on 8 March 2011 and referred to mediation (s 54 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) (SAT Act)).
Mediation took place on 14 April 2011 and an agreement reached between the carers of PA and RH as to the arrangements of her visits to the community house.
The hearing of the substantive application was heard on 28 June 2011.
The estate of PA has been managed for many years by the Public Trustee under s 36C (repealed) of the Public Trustee Act 1941 (WA). Under the transitional provisions of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) (GA Act) (Sch 5, cl 4) the Public Trustee ceases to have functions under s 36C when, relevantly, an administration order is made under the GA Act.
The Public Advocate has made an application for an administration order to be made in respect to PA's estate. That application was also heard on 28 June 2011.
The relevant legislation is the GA Act.

Decision of the Tribunal

The Tribunal has decided to appoint RH as the limited guardian of PA to decide where and with whom he should live and to make treatment decisions. The order is subject to a review in five years.
The Public Trustee is appointed the plenary administrator of the estate of PA. The order is also subject to a review in five years.
What follows are the reasons for the Tribunal's decision.

The guardianship application by RH

In her written application RH states that she made the application for guardianship because she was told by a staff member of the psychiatric hospital that arrangements would be made for an independent guardian to be appointed for her son. She says this happened at a time when PA needed acute care in hospital due to a relapse of his mental illness, in her view an insensitive time to make such a statement.
RH says that she has felt threatened by the care staff at the community house because of the restrictions placed on her visiting PA. There were no such restrictions when PA was residing in the psychiatric hospital and there was always someone on the ward, including a psychiatrist, with whom she could discuss matters of PA's care. The restrictions have meant that she has not been able to see PA often enough to determine his needs and anything that might be upsetting him.
Much of what concerns RH is contained in a letter dated 8 March 2011 (March letter) she sent to the Health Consumers Council and which is before the Tribunal.
In the March letter RH mentions the restrictions placed on her visiting the community house. She says she was once asked to leave the community house after PA had suffered an attack of oculogyric crisis to which he is prone. She says that she eventually left the community house when the psychiatric emergency team had attended to RH and he had been put to bed. RH explains that the symptoms of this condition are the head arching back, disorientation, imbalance and difficulties in swallowing. RH states that when this happened in the psychiatric hospital PA was given immediate medical attention (by way of injection) but this does not occur in the community house. She says that she asked the team leader at the community house to arrange for PA to be given a MedicAlert® bracelet for when he suffers an oculogyric attack so that if he needs to be taken to the emergency department of a general hospital his particular needs will be clear to the treating doctors. PA has been provided with this bracelet and is said to be pleased with it.
In the March letter RH recounts several instances when her visits to the community house have been the subject of conflict with members of the care team over visiting times and rules. One particular incident on 6 February 2011 resulted in the care staff demanding she should leave and stating that the police had been called. RH says that PA was in his bedroom and had not been roused by staff for the visit. She had been asked to leave. She had asked that PA be given the fruit she had brought for him which was refused. Shortly after PA had rushed from his room and had eaten some of the fruit before returning to his room. RH says that in her subsequent attempt to gently throw a banana peel into a bin, she was accused by a carer who was standing nearby of throwing the peel at her. A carer stood in front of her car stating that she would remain there until RH had left the property.
RH refers to a letter written by the manager of the community house in February 2011 in which she is advised her visits to PA must take place away from the house because of her allegedly antisocial behaviour including the incident on 6 February 2011 (see: 'The mental health team and community house staff' below). RH states that it is she who has been badly treated by the care staff. She says that PA has at times been put under pressure by staff to decide whether or not he wants her to visit and this makes him anxious. She states that visitors' rules have not been displayed so that families can abide by the visiting times. Although she has been given the 'Visitors' Protocol', she says this document does not make visiting times clear.
In her oral evidence RH states that her role as PA's mother is being undermined and that there is a real risk that her ties with her son will be cut by the actions of the community house staff. As for PA's need for a guardian, RH states:
Well, [PA] needs a guardian because he relies on so many other people to care for him and his family, and I'd like to keep my finger on the pulse of what's going on with him … [a]nd I've been doing that ever since he's been born, and it's hard to stop feeling any differently towards wanting the best for him … and the best care …(T:9, 26.06.11)
RH states that despite the difficulties with care staff she finds that PA is being quite well looked after in the community house, he is 'freshlooking, he's shaved, he's nicely dressed' (T:10, 26.06.11), although in her view he seemed happier in the psychiatric hospital environment.
RH says that she knows that the psychiatric hospital is no longer an option for PA's long term accommodation but that he will be admitted from time to time when he becomes acutely unwell. She is, however, concerned that should the community house not be successful for PA then the family will not be adequately consulted when alternative accommodation is considered.
RH states that whilst she believes that PA is intelligent enough to let her know what it is he would like in his life, she is able to make the 'tough' decision when that is required. She cites the example of when she was asked by the treating team to consider whether PA should be given libido suppressing medication due to alleged behavioural issues. She says that PA had apparently agreed to the treatment but that the treating team had done the 'right thing' by consulting her. RH says that she shed tears over the consideration of this treatment because she was concerned that so much had already been taken from PA's life and she did not agree that there was sufficient evidence to warrant the treatment. The treatment did not proceed.

The evidence of PA's siblings

The siblings say that RH has been the primary advocate of PA since he first became unwell with a mental illness in his late teens. They say that the mental illness severely impairs PA's ability to make reasonable and informed decisions about his life.
The siblings state that recent changes to care arrangements (from psychiatric hospital to the community house) has made it increasingly difficult for the family and particularly RH, to continue to provide an adequate level of support in regards to his decisionmaking. The family have felt at times shut out of the decisionmaking process which they say has put PA at risk.
The contact with PA is still considered too restrictive despite what was achieved at the mediation ordered by the Tribunal. The siblings state that it is important for RH to be able to see PA when she can.
The siblings submit that since leaving the psychiatric hospital PA has become more vulnerable. The hospital was a more contained environment and PA was under the care of one treating team. It is felt that since he has been in the community house PA has been disempowered in being able to articulate his need to see his family and in some of the treatment options. There needs to be someone to monitor what is happening in the community house.
The siblings say that RH has their full support in her proposal that she be appointed the guardian for PA. They say she is consultative, has always maintained good relationships with care professionals and has made considered and measured decisions for PA. The siblings dispute that RH was 'overly emotionally reactive' in the discussion about the libido suppressing medication because the intervention was being given serious consideration by the medical team.
The siblings state that there have been some difficulties with the community house and that it is important for the family to have more 'authority' in the decisionmaking about PA's future accommodation.

The mental health team and community house staff (care team)

The main allegation made by the care team is that RH is undermining PA's accommodation at the community house. In a report to the Tribunal, LL, manager of the accommodation program, states that RH consistently tells PA that he should return to the psychiatric hospital. RH is said to engage in verbal altercations with care staff and fails to acknowledge the gains PA has made at the community house.
In a letter to the Tribunal, PA's treating psychiatrist states that PA poses significant challenges to his care in the community. PA is said to present with institutionalised behaviours that are not tolerated readily in his local community, in particular he faces difficult challenges to establish and maintain appropriate interpersonal boundaries with people.
The psychiatrist states that the care team has found that RH cares deeply for PA but that engagement with her has not been constructive. He states:
In particular, I have a concern about the conflict of interest between the roles as a mother of a severely impaired adult child with a significant emotional investment and the more objective role as decision maker, working with [PA]'s treatment team and care team.
Evidence was given in the hearing by CH, the case manager for PA, Dr TH, medical officer for the treating team and AMK, team leader in the community house.
CH states that she has known PA for about 13 years and was his nurse in the psychiatric hospital. She says that PA has made much improvement since living in the community house.
In respect of the medical intervention when PA has an oculogyric crisis, CH says this is now different from when PA lived in the psychiatric hospital. The response in hospital was to give PA an injection which worked very quickly. This is now not possible because PA does not have a medical practitioner immediately available at the community house. The current response is in keeping with him living in the community. There is an intervention plan that care staff implement when required. The plan includes the giving of oral medication and if necessary a trip to the emergency department of the local hospital. CH states that this is an appropriate response given that the condition is not life threatening.
CH states that the hormonal (libido suppressing) medication about which RH has expressed concern, was only at the discussion stage when first brought to RH's attention. A meeting was held with RH and when she did not consent to an intervention the matter did not proceed.
CH states that the care team is not implying that RH is not capable of making an informed decision for PA as his mother:
... but there are times that when the treatment is done, it seems that the conflict of interest is there and it's really hard to make a decision for [PA]. (T:23, 28.06.11)
She explains it further in this way:
... conflict of interest like when we had the medication discussed, like with this oculogyric crisis and things like that. We feel that we can't actually make this in place, because [RH] will say no that we're trying to deal with. And we're finding it hard as a team to make a decision.
…
So everything what actually we've done for [PA] has actually been discussed [with RH]. Never [to] the point that we actually withheld any information from [RH]. But when the time comes that the treatment needs to be done, just like before, there's a conflict of interest. (T:23 24, 28.06.11)
CH puts it as setting aside the 'emotion we have as a mother' (T:31, 28.06.11) and to stand back and let others make the decisions for PA whilst continuing to be consulted about decisions that need to be made.
CH submits that the Public Advocate should be appointed the guardian for PA to decide his accommodation, consent to treatment decisions and to decide the contact he should have with others.
Dr TH states that PA's mental state fluctuates often and his management in the community has been very challenging. The behaviours of PA that led to a discussion about libido suppressing medication are not currently a matter for concern but may become so in the future.
Dr TH submits that because PA lacks judgment and the capacity to care for himself, he is in need of a guardian. He supports the appointment of a 'third party' and regards accommodation as a critical decisionmaking role given the care team's view that the community house is the best option for PA.
Dr TH submits that the issue of RH's contact with PA can be gradually resolved by 'mediation meetings'.
AMK (community house team leader) states that the current arrangements for RH visiting PA at the community house are working 'really, really well'. She says PA's family is encouraged to take him for outings in the community.

The views and wishes of PA

PA was only able to contribute in a limited way to the hearing. He sees his mother (RH) as his guardian but also states that is what his mother wants and he agrees with it. As an example he cites the negative effects of the antipsychotic drug Clozapine but that his mother thinks it is a 'wonder drug so I can't go against her and say it's a bad tablet …'. (T:43, 28.06.11)

The Public Advocate

The application for guardianship was referred to the Public Advocate by the Tribunal pursuant to s 97(1)(b)(ii) of the GA Act. The role of the Public Advocate in these proceedings is to advance the best interests of PA (s 97(1)(b)(i)).
The Public Advocate states that she is able to appreciate the submissions of both PA's family and the care team. She expresses a concern that in her communication with RH the preferred accommodation for PA is a return to the psychiatric hospital particularly if PA expresses a wish for that to happen. She also submits that the contact arrangements for PA in the community house, subject to the view of the care team, continues to be an issue to be resolved and that the use of libido suppressing medication might be raised again in the future. It is submitted that PA is in need of a guardian but that it is not clear who that should be.

Relevant legislation

Section 4 of the GA Act:
Principles stated
(1)In dealing with proceedings commenced under this Act the State Administrative Tribunal shall observe the principles set out in this section.
(2)The primary concern of the State Administrative Tribunal shall be the best interests of any represented person, or of a person in respect of whom an application is made.
(3)Every person shall be presumed to be capable of
(a)looking after his own health and safety;
(b)making reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to his person;
(c)managing his own affairs; and
(d)making reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to his estate,
until the contrary is proved to the satisfaction of the State Administrative Tribunal.
(4)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.
(5)A plenary guardian shall not be appointed under section 43(1) or (2a) if the appointment of a limited guardian under that section would be sufficient, in the opinion of the State Administrative Tribunal, to meet the needs of the person in respect of whom the application is made.
(6)An order appointing a limited guardian or an administrator for a person shall be in terms that, in the opinion of the State Administrative Tribunal, impose the least restrictions possible in the circumstances on the person’s freedom of decision and action.
(7)In considering any matter relating to a represented person or a person in respect of whom an application is made the State Administrative Tribunal shall, as far as possible, seek to ascertain the views and wishes of the person concerned as expressed, in whatever manner, at the time, or as gathered from the person’s previous actions.

Section 43 of the GA Act:
Making of guardianship order
(1)Subject to section 4, where the State Administrative Tribunal is satisfied that a person in respect of whom an application for a guardianship order is made under section 40
(a)has attained the age of 18 years;
(b)is
(i)incapable of looking after his own health and safety;
(ii)unable to make reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to his person; or
(iii)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,
the Tribunal may by order declare the person to be in need of a guardian, and if it does so shall appoint
(d)a person to be a plenary guardian or a limited guardian and, if it is expedient, a person to be an alternate guardian; or
(e)persons to be joint plenary guardians or joint limited guardians,
as the case may require, of the person in respect of whom the application is made.
(2)Where under subsection (1) the State Administrative Tribunal declares that a person is in need of a guardian, it shall also declare the matter or matters set out in paragraph (b) of that subsection of which it is satisfied.
(2a)Subject to section 4, where the State Administrative Tribunal is satisfied that a person in respect of whom an application for a guardianship order is made under section 40
(a)has attained the age of 17 but not 18 years; and
(b)will, when he attains the age of 18 years, be
(i)incapable of looking after his own health and safety; or
(ii)unable to make reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to his person; or
(iii)in need of oversight, care or control in the interests of his own health and safety or for the protection of others;
and
(c)will, when he attains the age of 18 years, be in need of a guardian,
the Tribunal may by order declare the person will be in need of a guardian when he attains the age of 18 years, and if it does so shall appoint
(d)a person to be a plenary guardian or a limited guardian and, if it is expedient, a person to be an alternate guardian; or
(e)persons to be joint plenary guardians or joint limited guardians,
as the case may require, of the person in respect of whom the application is made.
(2b)Where under subsection (2a) the State Administrative Tribunal declares that a person will be in need of a guardian, it shall also declare the matter or matters set out in paragraph (b) of that subsection of which it is satisfied.
(2c)An appointment made under subsection (2a) in respect of a person comes into operation on the day on which the person attains the age of 18 years.
(3)An appointment under subsection (1) or (2a) may be made subject to such conditions and restrictions as the State Administrative Tribunal thinks fit.
(4)An order appointing a limited guardian shall specify the functions that are vested in the limited guardian under section 46.
Section 44 of the GA Act:
Who may be appointed guardian
(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.
(3)Where a proposed appointee is a relative of the person in respect of whom the application is made, he shall not by virtue only of that fact be taken to be in a position where his interests conflict or may conflict with those of that person.
(4)The fact that a person is the administrator of the estate of a person does not disqualify him from being appointed as guardian of that person.
(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.

PA's capacity

The Tribunal has before it a report by Dr TH which states that PA suffers from chronic paranoid schizophrenia. In his oral evidence Dr TH states, echoing the assessment of the treating psychiatrist, that PA lacks judgment about his care needs and is incapable of caring for himself.
Because PA has lived in an institutional setting for many years he exhibits intrusive behaviours that are difficult in a community setting and he is in need of constant supervision. It is common ground that PA's mental illness significantly impairs his ability to make reasonable judgments in his personal life. This is consistent with his presentation at the hearing as he was not able to fully participate and appeared to lack an understanding of the proceedings.
The evidence also clearly shows that PA is incapable of looking after his own health and safety and that he is in need of oversight and care not only in his own interests but potentially for the protection of others.
The Tribunal is satisfied that PA meets all of the conditions set out in s 43(1)(b) of the GA Act and is therefore a person for whom a guardian could be appointed.

Need for a guardian

PA is effectively bound by the decisions of others and that has been the case for many years. Prior to moving to the community house he lived in the setting of a psychiatric hospital because it was considered he was not able to live independently and there was no appropriate alternative accommodation. For periods of time he has been detained under the provisions of the Mental Health Act 1996 (WA).
PA's chronic mental illness impairs his thinking to the extent that whilst he can voice his opposition to things when they happen he is unable to give effect to his wishes other than in a way which would be detrimental to his own wellbeing. He is unable to make reasonable judgments about his own best interests and must rely upon others to do so. The 'others' in his case are his family, particularly his mother, and his care and medical teams. When they agree on what is best for him then decisions are made in a consensual manner and do not likely require the presence of a guardian appointed under the GA Act. In those circumstances the least intrusive process can prevail. Unfortunately (and not uncommonly in many matters that come before the Tribunal) this is not how the current situation for PA presents. RH and the care team are, at times, at odds.
In such a situation a response could be for the Tribunal to appoint a guardian external to the parties in dispute on the basis that the antagonism between the parties is working in opposition to PA's best interests. I do not accept this would be in PA's best interests for the following reasons.
It appears that the transition from psychiatric hospital to the community house has not been easy for PA or for RH. On the face of it this is understandable given the long period PA lived in the hospital. From the perspective of RH the hospital setting was a safe environment for PA with the ready availability of medical staff. She had established a consistent relationship with staff and knew what to expect. The move to the community house has introduced uncertainty at the same time as giving PA greater opportunity to show to what extent he can successfully live in the community.
It appears that the care team believes RH undermines the community house placement with her positive reference to the psychiatric hospital and her questioning of visitor arrangements for example. I accept that RH is concerned about aspects of the community house but in her evidence understands that the psychiatric hospital is no longer an option for permanent accommodation. In her view and in the view of PA's siblings however, this does not mean that the community house is the only future option for him. I accept this is a reasonable position to hold.
I am satisfied that RH's advocacy for her son, whilst strongly oppositional at times, is directed to his best interests. The care team should not feel threatened by this situation as a robust discussion about the various decisions that need to be made for PA minimises the potential for complacency in the decisionmaking.
I do not accept the submission of the care team that RH is in a 'conflict of interest' in her roles as mother and decisionmaker for PA. The position of the care team appears to be that the emotional response of RH to PA's circumstances impacts on her ability to make 'objective' decisions. Whilst I can accept, as a general proposition, that making a decision in a person's best interests requires some limited detachment by the decision maker (see, for example, the requirements of s 51 of the GA Act), it is obviously the case that this does not preclude a strong emotional attachment to the person for whom the decision is to be made. This attachment and the attendant intimate knowledge of the person likely strengthens the impact of any advocacy of the decisionmaker.
The example given of RH's response to the consideration of libido suppressing medication for PA makes the point. The concern raised by RH that the medication would impact on PA's fundamental right to his sexuality was, in my view, reasonable. I am satisfied that RH was not precluding the possibility of the need for medication, but rather that she wanted to emphasise the seriousness of what was being proposed and the impact it would have on PA's already diminished quality of life.
In deciding whether PA is in need of a guardian I must find that there is not a less restrictive alternative to the making of an order. I need to be mindful of how an order may restrict PA's freedom of decision and action (s 4(2)(c) of the GA Act).
Given PA's chronic disability and its impact on his ability to function in a way in which he could maintain his own health and safety in his present circumstances, it is my view that a guardianship order will not imperil his freedom but rather provide a necessary protection to the decisionmaking in his life. He will benefit from certainty in the decisionmaking and from an authority that attaches to the advocacy made on his behalf when, as currently, there are differences of opinion as to what is best for him.
An important question is what roles or functions should the guardian be given taking into account the requirement of s 4(2)(d) of the GA Act that if a limited set of functions can meet the needs of PA then a plenary order should not be made.
There are two functions I find that are the least necessary to meet the needs of PA. They are to decide his accommodation and to make treatment decisions. The former authority is important because the decision about where PA should live will require regular consideration as he hopefully improves his social skills and achieves a measure of independence. The latter is important because PA is prescribed antipsychotic medication which requires ongoing consent. In PA 's situation where there is some contention about the treatment (PA himself questions the use of Clozapine) I take the view that a formally appointed guardian is a more persuasive authority than the recently enacted 'person responsible' provisions of the GA Act (see Pt 9C of the GA Act).
Much has been said about the visiting arrangements in the community house. RH has questioned the visiting rules and the care team has expressed concerns about the way they say she has not adhered to those rules. The mediation conducted by the Tribunal led to an agreement between the parties on the visiting arrangements and that arrangement appeared to be intact at the time of the hearing despite the ongoing reservation of the parties. Both Dr TH and AMK are confident that the contact of PA with RH can be managed informally and I share that confidence. I have therefore decided not to include the contact PA has with others as a formal authority held by the guardian.
The next question is who should be appointed the guardian? Section 44 of the GA Act provides some guidance.
I am satisfied that RH should be appointed the guardian for PA. I have already stated my view as to the positive advocacy role undertaken by RH. Taking the provisions of s 44 of the GA Act into account I am satisfied that RH will act in the best interest of PA with her strong views about his personhood and her profound understanding of him as his parent. The appointment of RH preserves existing family relationships; RH is obviously compatible with PA and it appears that it is PA's wish that his mother be his guardian (s 44(2)(a) to (c) of the GA Act). I am satisfied that RH is able to perform the guardianship functions contained in the order as she has been doing so informally since PA reached adulthood (s 44(2)(d)).
I have already found that the interests of RH do not conflict with PA's interests (s 44(1)(b)).
The order is to be reviewed in five years which is the maximum period available under the GA Act (s 84).

Administration

It is common ground, and I accept, that PA is a person for whom an administration order could be made. He satisfies the provisions of s 64(1)(a) of the GA Act in that he is unable by reason of his chronic and severe mental illness to make reasonable judgments about any part of his estate. He has been subject to a financial manager for many years but not by way of an order made pursuant to the GA Act. It is in his best interests, in my view, to come under the protection of the GA Act with its regular reviews of administration orders.
The parties support the appointment of the Public Trustee and I agree with that submission.
I appoint the Public Trustee as the plenary administrator of PA's estate with a review to be conducted at the end of five years.

Orders

Guardianship

1.[RH] of [address] is appointed limited guardian of the represented person [PA] 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; and
c)subject to Div 3 of Pt 5 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), to make treatment decisions for the represented person.

2.This order is to be reviewed by 13 September 2016.

Administration

1.The Public Trustee of 565 Hay Street, Perth, Western Australia is appointed plenary administrator of the estate of the represented person with all the powers and duties conferred by the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA).
2.This order is to be reviewed by 13 September 2016.

I certify that this and the preceding [79] paragraphs comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
___________________________________
MR J MANSVELD, MEMBER