PJR

[2009] QCAT 12

CITATION:      PJR [2009] QCAT 12

PARTIES:   PJR

APPLICATION NUMBER:            GAA6844-09 GAA6845-09

MATTER TYPE:   Guardianship and administration matters

HEARING DATE:   10 December 2009

HEARD AT:   Brisbane

DECISION OF:   C Endicott, senior member

DELIVERED ON:   10 December 2009

DELIVERED AT:   Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:   Application for interim order dismissed

CATCHWORDS: Section 129 Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 – whether immediate risk of harm to welfare and property

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

Application was heard on the papers in the absence of parties

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. On 9 December 2009 an application for an interim order about PJR (the adult) was lodged by RR, advocate for PJR, seeking the appointment of an administrator and the appointment of a guardian

2. Section 129 of the Act provides for the making of interim orders if the tribunal is satisfied, on reasonable grounds, there is an immediate risk of harm to the health, welfare or property of the adult concerned in an application, including because of the risk of abuse, exploitation or neglect of, or self-neglect by, the adult.

3. The tribunal may make an interim order in a proceeding without hearing and deciding the proceeding or otherwise complying with the requirements of the Act.  The maximum period that may be specified in an interim order is 3 months. 

1. The Tribunal considered the following evidence about the adult’s capacity

health professional reports: Dr CD reported on 19 October 2009 that PJR had a limited ability to understand and to act on information relating her personal affairs and no ability in relation to understand and act on information about her financial affairs.  Dr CD was of the opinion that PJR could not make decisions freely and voluntarily and that she could not make any simple or complex decisions due to her intellectual impairment. 

1. The following issues were raised as the basis for the interim order application:

·issues arising from the adult’s accommodation circumstances

·issues arising from the adult’s health care circumstances

·issues arising from the services that the adult needs

·issues arising from day to day issues

·there is nobody in the adult’s life to assist adequately with financial decisions

·the adult is vulnerable to financial abuse or exploitation

1. The Tribunal considered the following evidence about those issues: PJR has an advocate who is providing support to her about a variety of issues. PJR wants to separate from her husband who presently assists her with health care and day to day issues.  She would require significant services to live independently.  It has been alleged that PJR has attempted to harm her husband but no charges will be laid after police involvement.  PJR would require significant assistance to manage her finances if she no longer relies on her husband to assist her.  She is in receipt of a Centrelink benefit.  She and her husband have been served with eviction notices due to failure to pay rent on their rented accommodation premises. Although the eviction notices require the premises to be vacated by 10 December 2009, the rental agency has informed PJR’s advocate that they would not be seeking to evict PJR after that date or at anytime soon.  PJR has been refused accommodation at a women’s shelter due to her limited independent life skills.   The advocate for PJR is seeking support funding from Disability Services.  

1. The Tribunal made the following findings of fact about those issues: PJR is in accommodation from which she is unlikely to be evicted in the near future. She has an advocate who is seeking funding for her support and who is providing support about other persons issues.  PJR has a regular source of income from Centrelink.  

1. On the basis of the information provided:

   ·the Tribunal considers that the adult has impaired decision making capacity for the matter

   ·the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is an immediate risk of harm to the adult’s health, welfare or property

CONCLUSION

1. The Tribunal determines that

   ·the need for an interim appointment of a guardian has not been established

   ·the need for an interim appointment of an administrator has not been established

2. The Tribunal dismisses the application for an interim order.