SM

[2011] QCAT 195

CITATION: SM [2011] QCAT 195

PARTY: SM

APPLICATION NUMBER:   GAA1597-11

MATTER TYPE: Guardianship and administration matters for adults

HEARING DATE: On the papers

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF: Clare Endicott, Senior Member

DELIVERED ON: 27 April 2011

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:	1)    Application dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, s 47

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

APPLICANT:	Nil
RESPONDENT:	Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. On 22 February 2011 the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal received an application from BP seeking her appointment as guardian for her mother SM.

1. SM had been the subject of a previous hearing of the Guardianship and Administration Tribunal on 13 November 2009 by way of an interim order.  The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal considered the applications at that time on 1 February 2010, made a declaration in respect of SM’s incapacity to make enduring powers of attorney, dismissed guardianship applications, and appointed the Public Trustee as administrator.  Reasons were given for those decisions.

1. Those reasons conclude that the Tribunal was satisfied there was no need for the appointment of a guardian for SM at that time.  Reasons further reveal that the statutory health attorney regime was discussed with the family who despite their differences, agreed they could and would be able to make health decisions for SM and be able to communicate any such decisions to all other members of the family.

1. In her application BP says that BM and his wife put the adult’s safety at risk.  She states that BM has not inquired with any medical practitioners as to their mother’s health needs or health matters.  She believes her mother is easily persuaded when he is around her, she is the only person who picks her mother up on a weekly basis, buys her clothing and all medical needs and takes her on regular outings.  BM does not do any of these things.

1. The application did not reveal to the Tribunal that there was any need for the appointment of a guardian for SM.  The application suggests there is a need for decisions including health care for the adult, day to day issues including diet and dress and legal matters not relating to finances or property.  SM is in a 24 hour facility with regular contact with her daughter.

1. The Tribunal wrote to the applicant on 3 March 2011 advising that on the basis on the information she provided there does not appear that a guardian needed to be appointed.  This correspondence outlined that decisions of a personal nature are most often made by family or friends on an informal basis and that decisions of a health care nature can be made by a statutory health attorney under the Powers of Attorney Act 1998.  This letter further noted that the applicant was currently making relevant decisions without any interference from her brother.

1. She was invited to withdraw her application.  By letter of 8 March 2011 the applicant advised she wishes to continue with her application.  She cites an example of BM not taking her mother to a doctor to have a large boil lanced and that if she was the guardian she would be able to make sure her mother got to her appointed times with her doctor, being able to coordinate times with work and the nursing home.

1. The Tribunal also takes into account further matters in her letters in respect of vaccinations and regular contact with the facility.  The Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a need to appoint a guardian.  The Tribunal generally appoints a guardian if there is no one making a decision for an adult, if there is family conflict about decisions, if decisions are not being made in the person’s best interest or if there is conflict between a family member and a service provider.

1. In this instance there may well be a dispute between family members however this is not impacting on the adult’s health care.  BP, the applicant is perfectly able to make decisions for her mother for health care under the statutory health attorney regime.

[10] The Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a need for this application to be heard and on this basis will dismiss the application pursuant to section 47 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009.