| CITATION: | SM [2014] QCAT 596 |
| PARTIES: | SM |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | GAA3414-14 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Guardianship and administration matters for adults |
| HEARING DATE: | 30 July 2014 |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | Member Allen |
| DELIVERED ON: | 28 October 2014 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
| ORDERS MADE: | 1. The appointment of The Public Guardian as guardian for SM for decisions about the following personal matters is continued: (a) Accommodation; (b) With whom SM 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 two (2) years. |
| CATCHWORDS: | GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION – review of the appointment of a guardian Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 (Qld), s 12, s 31 |
APPEARANCES:
SS, applicant and proposed guardian
SK by telephone
SL by telephone
Lisa Pool from the Public Guardian
REPRESENTATIVES:
Tim Brown representing the Public Guardian
REASONS FOR DECISION
Introduction
SM is 85 years old and resides at an aged care facility. She came to Australia after the Second World War to live with her husband at Maleny and was part of that community until she transitioned to aged care in 2013. SM has five children SS, SK, SF, SKE and SL. While each of them plays a part in her life there is conflict between them and the Tribunal appointed the then Adult Guardian and the Public Trustee of Queensland as decision-makers for her in 2010 and continued those appointments in 2012.
SS has made this application to review the appointment of the Public Guardian due to her concerns in regard to the decision to have SM placed at the aged care facility initially on an interim basis and then later on a permanent basis on 14 May 2014. She has other concerns about the care and treatment her mother is receiving at the aged care facility and that the Adult Guardian is unable to deal with any of these issues in a timely manner as they are bureaucrats in Brisbane. In particular she believes her mother has rejected the facility which she displays by constantly wanting to be taken home to Maleny and waiting outside every day. Her mother lost 5 kilograms following her placement at the aged care facility and despite her informing the facility of her mother’s requirements for dental hygiene she has lost several teeth. She also identified that the cause of her mother not eating properly may have been pain associated with her poor dental hygiene. SM is subject to showering by males and this is said to cause SM great stress and embarrassment, as she is a very private person. There have also been at least two incidents where SS believes unnecessary force was used by the facility in respect of her mother. The first being the day of her arrival at the facility and the second on 21 January 2014.
SS was returning her mother to the facility on 21 January 2014 and was having some difficulty getting SM to…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read SM and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2014] QCAT 596
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the continuation of The Public Guardian's role as SM's guardian was appropriate, considering SM's current needs and circumstances. The Tribunal had to assess whether SM's best interests were being served by the continuation of this guardianship and whether any alternatives could better meet SM's needs. This included examining SM's current condition, the effectiveness of the guardianship in addressing SM's personal matters, and any potential for a less restrictive alternative.
The Tribunal found that the continuation of The Public Guardian's guardianship was in SM's best interests. The evidence presented indicated that SM's cognitive impairments and other health issues necessitated ongoing support and decision-making in relation to their personal matters. The Tribunal was satisfied that The Public Guardian was adequately fulfilling their duties and that there were no viable alternatives that could better meet SM's needs. The order was made to continue the guardianship for a period of two years, with a requirement for a review to ensure that the arrangement remained in SM's best interests.
The final orders of the Tribunal were to continue the appointment of The Public Guardian as SM's guardian for decisions regarding accommodation, contact, health care, and provision of services. This appointment was to remain in effect until further order of the Tribunal and was to be reviewed in two years to ensure ongoing suitability and necessity.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appointment of The Public Guardian as guardian for SM for decisions about the following personal matters is continued:
(a) Accommodation;
(b) With whom SM 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 two (2) years.
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.