RWD
[2012] QCAT 597
•1 November 2012
| CITATION: | RWD [2012] QCAT 597 |
| PARTIES: | RWD |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | GAA7105-12 / GAA9335-12 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Guardianship and administration matters for adults |
| HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | C Endicott, Senior Member |
| DELIVERED ON: | 1 November 2012 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
| ORDERS MADE: | 1. The application for a review of the appointment of a guardian by RM is dismissed. 2. The application for a review of the appointment of an administrator by RM is dismissed. |
| CATCHWORDS: | GUARDIANSHIP – where appointment of guardian and administrator made in May 2012 – where review application filed in August 2012 – where requirements of practice direction not met |
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):
This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (QCAT Act).
REASONS FOR DECISION
The Adult Guardian and The Public Trustee of Queensland were appointed by QCAT as decision makers for RWD on 11 May 2012. RWD had received some retirement funds from his former employer which he had used to reduce his mortgage over his house. Unfortunately payment of the disability support pension from Centrelink had been suspended because of his actions and at the time of the hearing, RWD had no income or funds of his own on which he could rely for support.
RWD has complex health and care needs. He uses a wheelchair for mobility purposes. His medical treatment team expressed concerns that his care needs could not be adequately met in the house in which he and his wife reside. The tribunal was told that it was likely that other accommodation would have to be sourced to meet RWD’s needs.
The Adult Guardian was appointed to make decisions about accommodation, health care and services for 18 months. The Public Trustee was appointed to make all financial decisions for 18 months. Neither RWD nor his wife appealed against these appointments.
On 24 July 2012, just over two months after the appointments were made, Mrs RWD contacted QCAT and requested in essence that a review be conducted of the appointments. On 10 August 2012 Mrs RWD filed an application for review in which she proposed that she be appointed as the decision maker for her husband although in her application Mrs RWD appeared to suggest that her husband had capacity to make his own decisions.
Mrs RWD filed a report from a retired army paramedic and former social worker in support of her assertion that her husband had capacity to make his own decisions. It was unclear when the report writer had last worked in any occupation that gave him any expertise to express medical opinions. The tribunal gave no weight to the opinions expressed by the retired army paramedic.
The information provided by Mrs RWD revealed no new and relevant information which had arisen since the hearing on 11 May 2012, no relevant change in circumstances since the hearing and no relevant information that was not available to be given to the tribunal at the hearing on 11 May 2012. Mrs RWD did not provide satisfactory information as to why she was more appropriate for appointment than the current appointees. This type of information is required before an appointment of a decision maker is reviewed at a time prior to the expiry of their term of appointment.[1]
[1] Practice Direction 8 of 2010.
A decision making regime for persons with impaired capacity can only be effective if the regime provides some certainty about how decisions are made. Certainty of decision making is unnecessarily undermined should appointments made by the tribunal be subjected to review at any time and without adequate grounds. A decision maker and those persons relying on decisions made by an appointed decision maker should have certainty that an appointment for a set term will endure for that set term. Exceptions are allowed if an adequate ground for review is established.
Mrs RWD did not establish that any adequate grounds existed for a review to take place three months into an 18 month term. Her grounds were primarily based on the cost of care and the deleterious impact that those costs were having on the family’s assets. Those matters are of course of concern but can be handled by RWD’s current administrator without a review being rendered necessary.
Her proposals for ongoing care for her husband’s complex needs did not persuade me that a review of the appointment of the guardian was necessary. Her proposals can be put to the guardian for consideration but do not render a review of the guardian necessary.
In accordance with paragraph 5 of Practice Direction 8 of 2010, the applications for review were dismissed on the papers as the information provided by Mrs RWD did not satisfy the requirements for the commencement of a review.
0
0
0