RMR
[2012] QCAT 636
| CITATION: | RMR [2012] QCAT 636 |
| PARTIES: | RMR |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | GAA7222-12 / GAA8484-12 / GAA8485-12 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Guardianship and administration matters for adults |
| HEARING DATE: | 23 November 2012 |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | Julia Casey, Presiding Member Jim Allen, Member |
| DELIVERED ON: | 23 November 2012 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
| ORDERS MADE: | 1. The guardianship order made by the Tribunal on 29 September 2011 is changed by appointing the Adult Guardian as guardian for RMR for decisions about the following personal matters: (a) accommodation; (b) with whom RMR has contact and/or visits; (c) health care; (d) provision of services. 2. This appointment remains current until further order of the Tribunal. The appointment is reviewable and is to be reviewed in 5 years. 3. The appointment of JM as administrator for RMR for all financial matters is continued. 4. The administrator is to provide a financial management plan to the Tribunal within 3 months. 5. The Tribunal directs the administrator to provide accounts to the Tribunal by 23 September 2013 and annually thereafter. 6. This appointment remains current until further order of the Tribunal. The appointment is reviewable and is to be reviewed in 2 years. 7. Within 3 months of the date of order the administrator must: (a) Search the records of the Registrar of Titles to identify any property registered in the adult’s name. (b) Give the Registrar of Titles a notice on their prescribed form and a copy of this decision advising the Registrar that any interest in property held by the adult is subject to this order. (c) Give to the Tribunal: (i) a copy of the “Lodgement Summary Form” from the Titles registry confirming the notice has been lodged for each property held by the adult; and (ii) a copy of the current title searches. 8. If the ownership of any property of the adult changes in any way or the adult acquires an interest in another property the administrator must, within 14 days of such changes: (a) give a copy of this order to the Registrar of Titles; and (b) give a notice to the Registrar about the changes or the adult’s interest in another property. |
| CATCHWORDS: | Capacity of adult – need for guardian and administrator – appropriateness of appointees Powers of Attorney Act 1998 |
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):
SJApplicant and daughter represented by Llewellyn Stephens of counsel instructed by Walker Lawyers
STApplicant and granddaughter
GRSolicitor, Walker Lawyers
JM Daughter and administrator
RBDaughter
PL Delegate of the Office of the Adult Guardian
BT Delegate of the Office of the Adult Guardian
Dr Richard Heath General practitioner, attended for part of the hearing by telephone
OM Director of care (at residential aged care facility), attended for part of the hearing by telephone
RKClinical nurse consultant (at residential aged care facility), attended for part of the hearing by telephone
JERegistered nurse (at residential aged care facility), attended for part of the hearing by telephone
REASONS FOR DECISION
History of the Application
RMR, (the adult), is an 88 year old woman who resides in a residential aged care facility in Nambour.
On 29 September 2011 the Tribunal appointed the Adult Guardian as guardian for the adult to make decisions about the following matters: accommodation, provision of services and health care. The appointment was until further order of the Tribunal. The appointment was reviewable and was to be reviewed in five (5) years.
On the same day the Tribunal appointed JM, the adult’s daughter, as administrator for the adult for all financial matters. The appointment was reviewable and was to be reviewed in two (2) years.
On 26 July 2012 the Tribunal received an application from SJ, daughter of the adult, requesting a review of the appointment of the Adult Guardian as guardian for the adult and proposing her own appointment as guardian for the adult.
The matter was scheduled for hearing in Brisbane on 24 August 2012. Following a request from the applicant the Tribunal adjourned the hearing until a date to be fixed.
On 3 October 2012 the Tribunal received an application from ST, the adult’s granddaughter, requesting a review of the appointment of the Adult Guardian as guardian for the adult and a review of the appointment of JM as administrator for the adult. In her application ST proposed the appointment of SJ as guardian and the Public Trustee of Queensland as administrator for the adult.
The matters were heard on 23 November 2012.
The Legislation
The issues for the Tribunal, based upon the legislation, are:
a) Does the adult have capacity to make personal and/or financial decisions?
b) Is there a continuing need for a guardian to be appointed? If so, should the current guardian be continued or is another appointment more appropriate?
c) Is there a continuing need for an administrator to be appointed? If so, should the current administrator be continued or is another appointment more appropriate?
The Tribunal is required to determine capacity as at the date of hearing in accordance with section 12 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 (GAA Act) as the Tribunal must be satisfied that the adult has impaired capacity before it can further consider the applications for the appointment of a guardian and administrator for the adult.
The adult is presumed to have capacity in accordance with section 7 of the GAA Act and general principle 1 of schedule 1 under the GAA Act. The Tribunal will consider the medical evidence and submissions from the parties to determine if the presumption of capacity has been rebutted for the adult.
The GAA Act defines capacity as follows:
“Capacity for a person for a matter, means the person is capable of-
(a) understanding the nature and effect of decisions about a matter; and
(b) freely and voluntarily making decisions about the matter: and
(c) communicating the decisions in some way”.
When conducting a review of a guardian or an administrator, the Tribunal must be satisfied not only in regard to capacity, but also must take into account the provisions of section 31 of the GAA Act. The Tribunal must revoke its order making the appointment unless it is satisfied it would make an appointment if a new application for an appointment were to be made.
In order to be satisfied that the Tribunal would make an appointment of a guardian or an administrator if a new application for an appointment were made, the Tribunal must refer to section 12 of the GAA Act that sets out the essential requirements for such an appointment.
The Tribunal, in accordance with s 31(4) of the GAA Act, may make an order removing an appointee and replacing that person only if the Tribunal considers that the appointee is no longer competent or another person is more appropriate for appointment.
If the Tribunal determines that there is a need for the appointment of a guardian and or administrator for the adult, the Tribunal in deciding who to appoint in those roles, will, in accordance with subsection 14(1)(c) of the GAA Act, have regard to the appropriateness considerations set out in section 15 of the GAA Act.
The evidence
In addition to written material contained on the Tribunal’s file, all of the parties attending the hearing were given the opportunity to express their views. The views, where specifically relied upon by the Tribunal, are outlined below.
Does RMR have capacity to make personal and/or financial decisions?
The Tribunal had the benefit of several medical reports dating from August 2011 until November 2012, which are addressed below in chronological order.
A document completed by the Aged Care Assessment Team, (ACAT), on 25 August 2011, describes the adult as having “dementia in Alzheimer’s disease”. The document listed several “cognitive behaviour / psychological aspects” that included short term memory problems, (described as “always” occurring), “regular” long term memory problems, “wandering”, disturbed sleep/insomnia, and disorientation to time, place and other people. The document states that while there was no evidence of swallowing difficulties the adult required “coaxing” to eat and drink. The document provides that the adult required assistance with toileting, dressing, oral hygiene along with supervision and “directional cues” with mobility in the context of multiple falls. The Aged Care Assessment Team assessed the adult as eligible to receive high-level residential care.
A report dated 7 September 2011 by Dr David Henshaw, a general physician, provides that the adult had a diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease and had been undergoing a gradual decrease in cognition over a period of years, evidenced by a history of diminishing results on the Mini Mental State Examination, (MMSE). Dr Henshaw stated that the adult achieved a score of 15/30 on the MMSE administered on 9 December 2010 by Paul Rudkin, an occupational therapist, and a score of 13/30 on the same test when administered by Dr Henshaw on 29 August 2011. Dr Henshaw provided the opinion that the adult may be “suggestible” as far as her daughters are concerned and that she is unable to make all decisions in relation to lifestyle/accommodation and health care matters. He further advised that the adult was unable to make complex financial decisions.
Further medical evidence is contained within a report dated 27 September 2011 by Dr Emily Ahern, a consultant physician and geriatrician. Dr Ahern states that the adult has moderately severe Alzheimer’s dementia and significant ongoing health issues along with complex care needs. She opined the adult is not able to make a competent decision about where she would like to live as she is unable to appreciate that she has any health concerns despite having high care needs and complex medical problems. Dr Ahern considered the adult would be vulnerable to influence in relation to lifestyle/accommodation decisions and that the adult would also be vulnerable to financial abuse as she is unable to manage her finances. Dr Ahern stated the adult achieved a score of 11/30 on the MMSE administered on 23 September 2011, with deficits across multiple domains including attention, orientation, short term memory recall and praxis. Dr Ahern compared the adult’s MMSE results to a score of 15/30 achieved by the adult on 12 October 2010 and considered that the adult’s diminishing MMSE scores would be consistent with slow ongoing deterioration in the adult’s cognition and functioning consistent with Alzheimer’s disease.
The adult was re-assessed by the Aged Care Assessment Team in February 2012. The documentation pertaining to the team’s assessment indicates the adult required assistance with all activities of daily living and was exhibiting regular short term memory problems, long term memory problems, confusion and at risk behaviour, along with occasional wandering, disturbed sleep/insomnia and disorientation to time, place and other people. The documentation states that the adult was currently nursed in a secure environment “as she would (otherwise) wander aimlessly”, and that the adult’s communication skills were impaired due to word finding difficulty and an inability to manage reading, writing and telephone usage. The report recommends the adult “needs to be spoken to clearly, slowly and directly” with conversational partners advised to use “short sentences”. The outcome of the ACAT assessment was that RMR was assessed as eligible to receive an Extended Aged Care at Home – Dementia (EACH-Dementia) package along with high level residential respite care in a residential aged care facility.
The Tribunal had the benefit of the resident care summary dated 28 September 2012 provided by the aged care facility in which the adult currently resides. The summary states the adult has Alzheimer’s disease with dementia and identifies many “problems” to be addressed in the adult’s care plans that include:
a. bowel and bladder incontinence;
b. communication deficits (poor short term memory, impaired cognition, reduced ability to communicate);
c. the adult requires assistance with all functional activities of daily living, (ADLs) due to cognitive and memory deficits affecting her ability to plan and complete any ADL;
d. the adult requires set up and assistance with nutrition and hydration;
e. inability to manage medications due to cognitive decline and short term memory problems; can be resistive to taking medication;
f. poor mobility and impaired cognitive and sensory levels impact on the adult’s ability to mobilize and transfer;
g. wanders into unsafe areas without awareness of risks as cognitive and short term memory deficits reduce the adult’s ability to make safe choices; inability to understand own limitations;
h. episodes of confusion / restlessness at night; occasionally wanders at night;
i. demonstrates confusion during day and will sometimes pack clothes in order to be ready to leave the secure residential aged care facility;
j. resistive to care; self-isolates in room and rejects encouragement to socially interact.
Taking the above written medical evidence in isolation, the Tribunal could find that the evidence was likely to rebut the presumption that the adult has capacity to make personal and complex financial decisions. Against this, however, is the evidence of Dr Richard Heath, a general practitioner, who submitted that the adult has the requisite capacity to make her own decisions.
Dr Heath provided a letter to the Tribunal dated 20 November 2012 detailing his review of the adult on 15 November 2012. He states that adult “was orientated in place and person” and that she referred to the newspaper to ascertain the current date. Dr Heath stated the adult was “less distracted by the grief associated with the loss of her husband, has gained weight and is socially interactive with other residents. Her MMSE is stable at 24-26 and therefore I certify that she has intellectual capacity”.
The Tribunal obtained oral evidence from Dr Richard Heath. He provided that the adult’s result of “24-26” on the MMSE he administered on 15 November 2012 “allowed for improvement” as he has observed the adult to be “eating well”, “sleeping better” and observed her to be “centred on activities”. When questioned Dr Heath stated that he omitted some stimulus questions from his administration of the MMSE and scored some erroneous responses as correct. To qualify, Dr Heath told the Tribunal the adult did not know the date and the month, nor did she provide details of her current address, (instead nominating incomplete details from a previous address). He further provided that while the adult could name the three items shown to her (i.e. “pen”, “handkerchief” and “script pad”), she could not remember them. He further stated that the adult was unable to count backwards from 100 by 7’s, nor could she spell the word “world” backwards. Dr Heath did not ask the adult to write a sentence or point to a watch. Dr Heath eventually told the Tribunal he wished to withdraw the MMSE results from his letter of 20 November 2012 as he opined the results could not be repeated.
Despite the adult’s impoverished responses elicited during the non-standardised cognitive assessment Dr Heath maintained the adult has “intellectual capacity” which he described as being able “to make a decision independent of her surrounds and surrounding people”. In Dr Heath’s opinion the adult is “less stressed” and “better than she was” having undergone a significant “improvement” since February 2012. Dr Heath considered the adult is able “to give a clear indication of what she wishes to do with her life”, which includes “moving to where SJ lives”.
On the basis of Dr Heath’s evidence counsel for SJ submitted the adult had “regained her capacity” and that proceedings should be immediately discontinued.
The Tribunal received further oral evidence from two clinical staff members from the adult’s residential aged care facility. JE, a registered nurse, and RK, a clinical nurse consultant, provided there has been no recent change, (ie deterioration or improvement) in the adult’s diagnosis or cognition. They stated the adult continues to need assistance with all ADLs and requires a floor sensor in the secure unit to alert staff to her wandering behaviour. They informed the Tribunal the adult exhibits memory deficits, disorientation to place and confusion as she often verbalizes she is looking for her husband who is now deceased. They further submitted the adult has positive relationships with staff and residents at the facility.
RB informed the Tribunal she last saw the adult on 15 November 2012, (the day of Dr Heath’s visit) and observed the adult to be “disoriented”.
In her evidence to the Tribunal JM submitted she last saw the adult on Saturday 17 November 2012 and found her “disoriented”, “confused” and “out of sorts”.
Conclusion
The Tribunal finds that while Dr Heath, (a general practitioner), may have concluded that the adult has the ability to make decisions without being influenced by others, the evidence of Dr David Henshaw, (a general physician), Dr Emily Ahern, (a consultant physician and geriatrician), the ACAT assessors and clinical nursing staff, does not, on any reasonable or objective basis, justify such a conclusion. The Tribunal finds that Dr Heath’s assessment process was flawed as the process did not adhere to the recommended protocols that would provide an objective basis to the assessment of the adult’s cognitive functioning.
Furthermore, the basis upon which Dr Heath formulates an opinion about the adult’s personal and financial decision-making capacity is devoid of standardized assessment results and inconsistent with the definition of capacity contained within the GAA Act as it only goes to the adult being able to express a view and not being able to understand the nature and effect of decisions.
The Tribunal prefers the evidence of Dr Henshaw and Dr Ahern on the issue of the adult’s capacity. The opinions of the two medical specialists are consistent with the adult’s care requirements as assessed by the Aged Care Assessment Team and managed by clinical nursing staff at the residential aged care facility.
The Tribunal makes findings that the adult has significant cognitive deficits associated with moderately severe Alzheimer’s dementia.
The adult is receiving high-level care in a secure residential aged care facility and requires assistance with all activities of daily living.
The adult regularly demonstrates disorientation, confusion and poor recall and is at risk of misadventure due to wandering behaviour.
The adult is vulnerable to influence.
Having regard to the medical and oral evidence the Tribunal is satisfied that the presumption contained in the GAA Act that the adult has capacity for personal and financial matters is rebutted. The Tribunal concludes that the adult, due to her cognitive decline, cannot understand the nature and effect of decisions about her personal and financial matters.
Is there a continuing need for a guardian to be appointed?
The evidence pertaining to the adult’s personal circumstances follows.
The adult entered her current accommodation in a secure residential aged care facility in Nambour in October 2011, following a decision by the Adult Guardian. The accommodation has been described as an “interim measure” by the delegate, and was made in the context of the adult being discharged from Noosa Hospital to a facility that would accommodate her own high-care needs together with those of her husband, RJ, who subsequently passed away on 25 July 2012.
While JM and RB are seeking the adult’s transfer to an alternative residential aged care facility SJ and ST maintain they were seeking the adult’s relocation to SJ’s residence at Greenbank.
Decisions are required in relation to the appropriateness of the current accommodation along with the sourcing and monitoring of alternative, permanent accommodation as the adult’s care requirements increase.
Ongoing decisions are necessary in relation to the nature and extent of support services to be provided to the adult and such decisions are dependent on the circumstances of the adult’s accommodation.
Health care decisions will be required to ensure the adult receives appropriate treatment for a number of conditions including severe aortic stenosis, congested cardiac failure, atrial fibrillation, mitral regurgitation, pulmonary oedema, hypertension, hyperlipidaemia, rheumatoid arthritis, non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus and diverticular disease. The adult also requires dental treatment that may include surgical removal of dentition and replacement of a dental prosthesis.
There is a heightened and sustained level of conflict within the adult’s family. While members of the adult’s family have endeavoured to refrain from visiting with her when other family members are known to be in attendance, there have been occasions when this has not occurred and verbal altercations between family members have occurred at the care facility in the presence of the adult.
PL submitted that there is a need for a decision-maker in relation to with whom the adult has contact and/or visits in addition to the matters pertaining to the adult’s accommodation, health care and the provision of services.
JM and RB concurred with the delegate’s submission.
SJ and ST submitted there was a need for a decision-maker in the areas of accommodation, provision of services and health care. They provided that the current informal arrangements in relation to contact and/or visits were sustainable and opined the adult may be visited less often if family members did not attend at scheduled times.
Conclusion
The adult has a number of co-morbidities. Her care requirements are increasingly complex. She requires a decision maker to ensure she receives appropriate medical treatment. Her current accommodation is considered temporary. It is essential that the adult is accommodated where she can receive care and service provision commensurate with her needs.
The adult is at an increased risk of distress due to interactions between her children. It follows that the adult will need protection from such distress.
Pursuant to s 12 of the GAA Act the Tribunal is satisfied there is a need for decisions pertaining to accommodation, provision of services, health care and with whom the adult has contact and/or visits. There must be an adequate and effective decision making regime in place for the adult as otherwise the adult’s needs will not be met and her interests will not be protected.
Should the current guardian be continued or is another appointment more appropriate?
The Tribunal must consider whether the appointed guardian should continue in that role or whether another party is more appropriate for appointment under section 31 of the GAA Act.
JM and RB support the continuing appointment of the Adult Guardian as an independent guardian who would liaise with all stakeholders and make objective decisions. They opined they would be unable to maintain contact with the adult if SJ were to be the adult’s decision-maker in relation to the adult’s accommodation and with whom the adult has contact/visits.
Counsel for SJ submitted she is able to make better personal decisions for the adult than the current guardian who has made “uncaring” and “bureaucratic” decisions. He further provided that, if appointed, SJ is prepared to seek medical and legal advice on behalf of the adult and that she should not be “supplanted by a bureaucrat”.
The Tribunal observes the majority of the applicant’s written and oral submissions have centred around the adult being relocated to SJ’s residence. For example, counsel for SJ stated that his client “can provide better care”. Mr Stephens submitted the adult’s current circumstances echoed those of characters in the movie “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest” and that the Tribunal should “place her in the hands of people who love and support her”. A further example is SJ’s submission that if she were appointed as guardian she would be guided by the advice of in-home carers (such as RSL Care) in determining whether the adult’s care needs could no longer be met at SJ’s residence and that she would, at that point, consider nursing home options.
Mr Stephens told the Tribunal SJ, if appointed, would be able to “provide contact” to JM and RB. Mr Stephens and GR submitted the contact arrangements would be conveyed via correspondence through lawyers and that the adult’s contact/visits with SJ’s siblings would involve either the adult being driven to meet with JM and RB at an agreed location, or alternatively, JM and RB would be permitted to enter a section of SJ’s home to visit with the adult once SJ had exited.
SJ further informed the Tribunal that under the current arrangements she does not enter the Nambour care facility, after driving from Brisbane, if she has reason to believe JM or RB are visiting with the adult. SJ stated that if she recognises vehicles in the facility’s car park belonging to either JM or RB she will immediately drive to an alternative location.
Having regard to SJ’s inability to be in the same location as her siblings, coupled with her intense motivation to care for the adult in her own home, the Tribunal is not satisfied that SJ would be able to effectively consult with JM and RB or be receptive to their opinions in order to make decisions about the adult’s accommodation, provision of services and health care matters.
General Principal 8 contained within Schedule 1 of the GAA Act provides that the importance of maintaining an adult’s existing supportive relationships must be taken into account by decision-makers. The Tribunal is not satisfied SJ would be able to make decisions in relation to the adult’s contact and/or visits with JM and RB without a conflict of interest, particularly if the visits were to occur within or from SJ’s home, and were likely to reduce the amount of contact with SJ herself.
The Tribunal does not consider SJ would be able to discharge decision making for the adult in a way that was consistent with the legislative requirements, including the General Principles.
In the period under review the Adult Guardian has consulted with the adult, members of the adult’s family, medical professionals, care providers, ACAT assessors, an “Aged Care Seeker”, and even members of the Queensland Police Service in order to make informed decisions in relation to the matters for which the guardian was appointed. The Tribunal considers the Adult Guardian to be an independent, skilful and experienced decision-maker, who has acted in accordance with legislative requirements, including the General Principles and the Health Care Principle.
Conclusion
The Tribunal determines, pursuant to s 31 of the GAA Act that the Adult Guardian is competent and that no other person is more appropriate for appointment as guardian for the adult.
The Tribunal appoints the Adult Guardian as guardian for the adult to make decisions about the following matters: accommodation, provision of services, health care and with whom the adult has contact and/or visits.
This appointment remains current until further order of the Tribunal. The appointment is reviewable and is to be reviewed in five years.
Is there a continuing need for an administrator to be appointed?
The evidence pertaining to the adult’s financial circumstances follows.
The adult receives the age pension.
Her assets include a property at Noosaville valued between $380,000 and $550,000, cash assets of $47,000 and personal items.
The adult is the sole beneficiary of the estate of her late husband, RJ who passed away on 25 July 2012. The estate included a half-share in the Noosaville property along with cash assets.
The adult’s expenses include accommodation fees, medical and living expenses, along with outgoings on the Noosaville property.
There are no liabilities.
A deficit in the adult's budget is as a result of her being levied an accommodation charge associated with her asset level and the fact that her real property is currently vacant and not a source of income.
Conclusion
The adult has income, assets and expenditure that require management. The current budget deficit is not sustainable.
Pursuant to s 12 of the GAA Act the Tribunal is satisfied there is a need for decisions pertaining to financial matters. There must be an adequate and effective decision making regime in place for the adult as otherwise the adult’s needs will not be met and her interests be not be protected.
Should the current administrator be continued or is another appointment more appropriate?
The Tribunal must consider whether the appointed administrator should continue in that role or whether another party is more appropriate for appointment under section 31 of the GAA Act.
JM seeks to continue her appointment as administrator for the adult and is supported by RB.
Counsel for SJ submitted at the hearing that, based on the written and oral evidence from Dr Richard Heath, the adult had “intellectual capacity” and therefore the appointment of the current administrator should be revoked. Mr Stephens provided that adult’s financial matters were not complex in nature and that the adult would be able to request assistance from others and would also be supported to manage her finances by her daughters.
In her written submissions to the Tribunal SJ stated the Public Trustee of Queensland would be a more appropriate for appointment as the adult’s administrator than JM. She provided the current administrator’s decisions are “clouded by animosity and bias” towards SJ and have been detrimental to the adult.
In her application to the Tribunal ST proposed the appointment of the Public Trustee of Queensland as administrator for the adult.
SJ and ST provide the administrator has failed to adequately maintain and protect the adult’s property. They expressed disapproval that the property had neither been sold nor rented in order to address the budget deficit.
ST further provided the administrator’s actions have included “withhold(ing) urgent dental treatment” and “misrepresenting” the value of the adult’s property to the Tribunal.
The Tribunal is cognizant of the material contained within the numerous and detailed submissions from ST, SJ, JM and RB. The evidence indicates the contradictory views of the parties in relation to the management of the adult’s finances. The Tribunal observes in recent months communication between the administrator and SJ and ST has been by correspondence through Australia Post, following the request by the administrator.
JM submitted accounts to the Tribunal for the period 29 September 2011 to 29 June 2012. The Tribunal’s financial assessment team concluded that the documentation “indicates it is probable that the administrator is managing the estate in the adult’s best interests and in accordance with the GAA Act”. The financial assessment team observed that the adult would benefit from her property being either tenanted or sold in order to alleviate the current “heavy burden on cash savings”. The team stated that the cash reserves are likely to further deplete if the property becomes an assessable asset in the future, thereby effecting a reduction in the adult’s pension.
JM submitted she has sought financial advice and quotations in relation to the property and that the property is to be repaired and tenanted within two months.
On balance, the Tribunal is of the view that in the period under review JM has acted in accordance with the terms of the order of 29 September 2011 and has fulfilled her obligations under the GAA Act.
Conclusion
The Tribunal determines, pursuant to s 31 of the GAA Act that JM is competent and that no other person is more appropriate for appointment as administrator for the adult.
The Tribunal continues the appointment of JM as administrator for the adult to make decisions about all financial matters.
In order to address the budget deficit, (with particular reference to decisions in relation to the adult’s real property), the administrator is directed to submit a financial management to the Tribunal within 3 months.
This appointment remains current until further order of the Tribunal. The appointment is reviewable and is to be reviewed in two years.
0
0
0