RJM
[2012] QCAT 156
•12 April 2012
| CITATION: | RJM [2012] QCAT 156 |
| PARTIES: | RJM |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | GAA7729-11 / GAA2908-12 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Guardianship and administration matters for adults |
| HEARING DATE: | 12 April 2012 |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | Professor A Ashman, Member |
| DELIVERED ON: | 12 April 2012 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
ORDERS MADE: | 1. The application for a declaration of capacity by RJM is dismissed. 2. The administration order made by the Tribunal on 19 September 2011 appointing DBC and DPD is changed by exempting the administrators from the requirement to provide annual accounts but directs the administrators to keep records of dealings and transactions involving the adult’s income and property and directs the administrators to provide the tribunal within 21 days of being notified that a review of their appointment has been commenced: (a) Copies of the adult’s bank statements/passbooks/term deposits for the past year; (b) A list of the adult’s currents assets and liabilities; (c) A current fortnightly budget of income and expenditure; and (d) A signed and witnessed Declaration as to continuing appropriateness for appointment. 3. Unless the Tribunal orders otherwise, this approval remains current until 18 September 2016. |
| CATCHWORDS: | Declaration of capacity – Adult’s capacity to make decisions in relation to personal and financial matters – Tribunal initiated review of administration – exemption of the requirement to the administrators to provide annual accounts Guardianship and Administration Act 2000, ss 31, 118 |
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):
The Adult
The Adult’s mother
A service facilitator
A carer
A senior carer
The Adult’s daughter, via teleconference
REASONS FOR DECISION
In August 2000, RJM experienced a ruptured cerebral aneurysm. This devastating brain injury resulted in communication and motor impairments, and spastic quadriplegia. RJM also sustained decision-making difficulties and this led to hearings at the Guardianship and Administration Tribunal in 2000 and later, and long-term appointments of DC and DP as administrators and of DM as guardian for RJM.
RJM lodged an application for a declaration of capacity in September 2011; an application prepared by her caring team on her behalf.
DC and DP were both unable to attend to the hearing.
DC and DP independently emailed the Tribunal registry concerning the hearing. DC stated that RJM is unable to manage her financial affairs due to physical limitations and expressed concerns that if RJM was to appoint an attorney under an enduring power that this might lead to the appointment of a person without the requisite financial management skills. She further wrote that if the Tribunal decided to hear the matter, it would be important for all interested parties to understand RJM’s concerns about the current arrangements.
DP wrote that the current situation is in RJM’s best interests. The administrators have, through careful management, increased RJM’s savings. He wrote that while she is aware of what is happening around her, it is impossible for her to give effect to decisions and to monitor her financial situation. He believed that the current arrangements were appropriate despite the onerous reporting arrangements required of the administrators by the Tribunal.
This set of written reasons is intended primarily to convey to DC and DP the reasons for the Tribunal’s decisions of this day.
The overwhelming bulk of the hearing was devoted to a one-to-one conversation between RJM and the presiding member. RJM was able to communicate her thoughts to the member via a communication board; a process slow, but productive. Throughout the hearing RJM was positive and cooperative.
RJM reported the month and year of her acquired brain injury and her understanding of her current personal and financial situations. She expressed her comfort with her current living arrangements and she recognised that if she wished to make any significant changes in her personal life, she would find it difficult to bring those changes from the status of desire to reality. She stated the need to rely on her carers and family members.
DM spoke positively about her daughter’s current living situation. There remained some issues that required her attention as guardian, notably continuing to advocate on her daughter’s behalf and seek additional support services to improve RJM’s quality of life.
[10] As to RJM’s financial situation, she reported an accumulation of about $10,000.00 in savings and stated that she trusted her brother and sister in their role as her administrators. While she indicated that she would like more money to be made available to her (in particular, for chocolate and cheesecake), she expressed the view that she would have difficulty balancing a budget and that her administrators were best placed to support her.
[11] DM supported the continuation of the current administration arrangements although she indicated that both DC and DP have demanding jobs and that there have been concerns about the annual reporting requirement.
[12] In terms of the declaration of capacity, the Tribunal found that RJM is aware of her current arrangements and able to communicate her wishes to others via her communication board. She recognises her limitations in both personal and financial decision-making and confirmed that she relies on others to assist in the decision-making process and was not able to act fully independently. These limitations are reflected in a September 2011 health professional’s report by RJM’s general practitioner.
[13] The Tribunal finds that RJM continues to have decision-making limitations that place her in a position of unreasonable risk in personal, health and welfare matters, and in regard to her financial affairs. The Tribunal dismisses the application for a declaration of capacity.
[14] The Tribunal initiated a review of the appointment of the administrators and notified those attending the hearing of this review and abridged time to allow the application to proceed[1]. The Tribunal reviewed the administrators’ accounts reporting history for those at the hearing, noted the gradual increase in RJM’s saving since the administrators were appointed, and RJM’s tight budget. There were no anomalies found in the manner in which the administration was being managed.
[1] In accordance with s 118 Guardianship and Administration Act 2000.
[15] The Tribunal was satisfied that the administrators were following the approved financial management plan and acting competently. The administration is simple in nature involving mainly pension income, minimal liabilities, a small budget surplus, and a modest but growing bank account. RJM lives in stable supported accommodation, has regular contact with family members, and engages with the wider community on a regular basis. There is a long-term supportive network.
[16] There is no basis to change the current administration arrangement on grounds set out in s 31 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000. The Tribunal finds that the administrators are acting in accordance with their roles and responsibilities as administrators. However, the Tribunal also finds that the imposition of the annual reporting regime is unnecessary due to the nature of RJM’s financial situation and the capable way in which her affairs are being managed. The Tribunal, therefore, grants to the administrators a full exemption for the requirement to provide annual accounts but makes directions as set out in the order.
0
0
0