Re: TJC - [2012] WASAT 111

RE: TJC [2012] WASAT 111

Last Update :29/05/2012

Jurisdiction:	STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL	Citation No:	[2012] WASAT 111
Published:
Act:	GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1990 (WA)
Case No:	GAA:187/2012	Heard:	DETERMINED ON THE DOCUMENTS
Coram:	MS S GILLETT (MEMBER)	Delivered:	25/05/2012
No Pages:	10	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application dismissed
Category:	B

Parties & Catchwords
Summary

Judgment

JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL STREAM : HUMAN RIGHTS ACT : GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1990 (WA) CITATION : RE: TJC [2012] WASAT 111 MEMBER : MS S GILLETT (MEMBER) HEARD : DETERMINED ON THE DOCUMENTS DELIVERED : 25 MAY 2012 FILE NO/S : GAA 187 of 2012 BETWEEN : VJ

Applicant

AND

TJC

Represented Person

Catchwords:

Guardianship - Application for leave to apply for review - Whether there has been any change in circumstance or any other reason to hold review of order - Continuing family conflict - Application for leave dismissed

Legislation:

Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), s 87, s 87(1)
State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 77

(Page 2)

Result:

Application dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : N/A

Represented Person : N/A

Solicitors:

Applicant : N/A

Represented Person : N/A

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

G v K (2007) WASC 319
TC [2006] WASAT 369
TJC [2007] WASAT 105
TJC [2009] WASAT 130

(Page 3)

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:

Summary of Tribunal's decision

1 The Tribunal dismissed an application for leave to apply for review of a guardianship order concerning a young man who had suffered a serious brain injury at birth. The order appointed the Public Advocate limited guardian to make decisions on his behalf concerning where he should live, the services he required, and contact between family members; and appointed his mother limited guardian to make treatment decisions. The application for leave was made by the paternal aunt of the young man and sought clarification in respect to the decisionmaking authority of the respective guardians, raised concerns about communication and provision of information between the parties concerning the young man, and sought to vary the order to enable the young man's father to consent on his behalf to medical and dental treatment whilst in his care.

2 The existing orders were made following protracted proceedings for which the young man was appointed a litigation guardian to instruct a separate legal representative. An independent assessment by a clinical psychologist was also ordered in the context of long-standing conflict between the parents of the young man and between his mother and paternal grandmother as to where he should live and the arrangements for his care.

3 The issues raised in the application seeking leave to apply for review did not disclose any significant change in circumstance or any other reason for the grant of leave. Having considered the application, a report from the Public Advocate and other information, the Tribunal determined that there had been no material change in the young man's circumstances or any other reason which supported the grant of…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Re: TJC

Details

AGLC: Re: TJC [2012] WASAT 111
Case: [2012] WASAT 111
Decision Date: 25 MAY 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Family Court of Australia, the case of Re: TJC dealt with an application for leave to apply for a review of a guardianship order. The applicant, who is a family member of the child, sought the review due to ongoing family conflict and alleged changes in circumstances. The court was tasked with determining whether there was a sufficient basis for the review, considering the nature of the dispute and the welfare of the child.

The legal issues that the court had to address included whether there had been a change in circumstances since the initial guardianship order was made and if there were any other reasons warranting a review. The court had to weigh the ongoing family conflict and its potential impact on the child against the stability provided by the existing guardianship arrangement. Furthermore, the court considered whether the application for leave to apply for review was in the best interests of the child.

The Family Court found that there was insufficient evidence to support a change in circumstances or any other compelling reason to warrant a review of the existing guardianship order. The court was particularly concerned about the ongoing family conflict and its detrimental effect on the child's welfare. Consequently, the court dismissed the application for leave to apply for review, noting that the current guardianship arrangement was in the best interests of the child. The court emphasised the importance of stability and the need to avoid further conflict, which could be exacerbated by a review process.

The final orders of the court were straightforward: the application for leave to apply for review was dismissed. The existing guardianship order remained in place, and no further action was permitted without further leave from the court. This decision underscored the court's commitment to prioritising the child's welfare and avoiding unnecessary disruptions in their care.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application dismissed

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.