SM - [2016] WASAT 109

JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

ACT: GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1990 (WA)

CITATION: SM [2016] WASAT 109

MEMBER: MR J MANSVELD (SENIOR MEMBER)

HEARD: 9 AUGUST 2016

DELIVERED : 5 SEPTEMBER 2016

PUBLISHED : 13 SEPTEMBER 2016

FILE NO/S: GAA 1557 of 2016

MATTER: SM
Represented Person

Catchwords:

Guardianship and administration Enduring power of guardianship Enduring power of attorney Conflict of interest Fiduciary Contact Violence restraining order Treatment decisions Joint ownership of property Joint mortgage when loan funds belong to one of the joint owners solely Inherent conflict of interest if the property is sold Guardian appointed Administrator appointed Guardianship appointment conditional Administration order made with direction Enduring power of guardianship revoked Enduring power of attorney revoked

Legislation:

Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), s 3, s 4, s 40, s 43, s 44, s 44(1)(b), s 45, s 64(1)(a), s 64, s 68, s 69, s 84, s 97(1)(b)(iii), s 108(1a), s 109(1)(a), s 110(N)(1)(a), Pt 9A, Pt 9C

Result:

Administrator appointed
Guardians appointed
Enduring power of attorney revoked
Enduring power of guardianship revoked

Summary of Tribunal's decision:

SM, an 80yearold woman, had been diagnosed with a cognitive impairment the main symptoms of which were shortterm memory problems and attendant confusion.
SM had five children, four daughters and one son. SM lived with one of her daughters, MM and had done so for some time.
MM was SM's guardian under an enduring power of guardianship and the son PM was her attorney under an enduring power of attorney.
There was significant conflict between some of SM's children.
One of SM's daughters, HG, made applications under the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA). HG sought to have a guardian appointed for SM and an administrator appointed for her estate.
The main concern for HG which was shared by another daughter was that she was prevented from having contact with SM by her sister MM and in addition MM was not providing her with any information about SM's medical and care needs. HG also did not trust either MM or her brother PM to manage SM's estate.
SM jointly owned the property with MM in which they lived. There was a joint mortgage on the property, however it was accepted that the loan the subject of the mortgage belonged to MM solely.
The Tribunal decided to appoint the Public Advocate as SM's limited guardian to decide her future accommodation. The Tribunal found that the interests of MM in the property potentially were in conflict with the interests of SM should the property need to be sold if SM went into care.
The Tribunal also appointed the Public Advocate as SM's guardian to make decisions about the support services she would need to remain living at home and to decide the contact she should have with her children. The question of contact could not be resolved without the appointment of the Public Advocate because communication had broken down and MM was pursuing a violence restraining order against HG.
The Tribunal appointed MM as limited guardian to make SM's treatment decisions. The Tribunal found that MM was making appropriate medical decisions and the lack of information to her siblings was not sufficient to warrant removing her from that role. The appointment of MM as guardian was however made conditional upon her advising the Public Advocate of any significant medical event in respect to SM. The Public Advocate would need that information to assist in her decision-making role and would be permitted to pass on medical information to SM's other children.
The enduring power of guardianship was revoked.
The Tribunal decided that PM be appointed the administrator of SM's estate with a direction that he arrange for SM to be released from her liability under the mortgage. The Tribunal was satisfied that PM would act in SM's best interests, he was supported by all his siblings except HG and his appointment gave effect to a wish of SM expressed through the enduring power of attorney.
The Tribunal revoked the enduring power of attorney because its authority was overtaken by the administration order.
The Tribunal dismissed the application made under s 109(1)(a) of the Act.

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Represented Person : N/A

Solicitors:

Represented Person : N/A

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:

Introduction

SM is an 80yearold woman who has been diagnosed with a cognitive impairment the main symptoms of which are shortterm memory problems and attendant confusion.
SM has five children. They are the daughters MM, HG, CA and SF and a son PM.
SM lives with her daughter MM. SF lives overseas.
CA has been estranged from SM and her siblings since 2012.

Enduring power of attorney

On 19 September 2013, SM executed an enduring power of attorney appointing PM as her attorney (EPA).

Enduring power of guardianship

On 3 March 2016, SM executed an enduring power of guardianship appointing MM as her enduring guardian (EPG). In that part of the instrument that deals with substitute enduring guardians, SM purports to describe what decisions MM as enduring guardian is authorised to make in the form of a limited authority and later in the instrument SM gives MM all of the functions of an enduring guardian.

The applications

HG has made three applications in respect of SM pursuant to the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) (GA Act).
The applications are for the making of a guardianship order, an administration order (s 40 of the GA Act) and an application under s 109(1)(a) of the GA Act requiring PM as attorney under the EPA to file with the Tribunal and serve on HG, a copy of all accounts and records kept by him of dealings and transactions made by him as attorney.
These applications were referred to the Public Advocate for investigation and report: s 97(1)(b)(iii) of the GA Act.
On 5 September 2016 an oral application was made by HG to revoke the EPG: s 110N(1)(a) of the GA Act.

The hearing

The hearing was attended by HG, MM, CA, PM, friends and other family members.
A representative of the Public Advocate also attended (Public Advocate).
The decision was reserved.

The relevant legislation

The primary concern of the Tribunal is the best interests of SM: s 4(2) of the GA Act.
In considering the applications the Tribunal shall, as far as possible, seek to ascertain the views and wishes of SM as expressed, in whatever manner, at the time, or as gathered from SM's previous actions: s 4(7) of the GA Act.
SM is presumed to be capable of looking after her own health and safety; making reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to her person; managing her own affairs; and making reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to her estate, until the contrary is proved to the satisfaction of the Tribunal: s 4(3) of the GA Act.
Under s 43(1)(b) of the GA Act the Tribunal cannot consider appointing a guardian for SM unless it is satisfied on the evidence that she is incapable of looking after her own health and safety; is unable to make reasonable judgments about matters relating to her person; or is in need of oversight care or control in the interests of her own health and safety or for the protection of others.
Under s 64(1)(a) of the GA Act the Tribunal cannot consider appointing an administrator of the estate of SM unless it is satisfied on the evidence that by reason of a mental disability, she is unable to make reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to all or any part of her estate.
Mental disability is defined in s 3 of the GA Act to include an intellectual disability, a psychiatric condition, an acquired brain injury and dementia.
If a finding of incapacity is made in respect to SM, the Tribunal must further determine whether she is in need of guardianship and administration orders. If the needs of SM can be met in a manner less restrictive of her freedom of decision and action, then orders should not be made: s 4(4), s 43(1)(c) and s 64(1)(b) of the GA Act.
If the Tribunal decides that SM is in need of guardianship and administration orders, it must then decide what authority should be given to the guardian and administrator, who the guardian and administrator should be and what review date should be set, given the requirement that orders must be reviewed at least once every five years: s 43(1)(d), s 43(1)(e), s 44, s 45, s 64(1)(c), s 64(1)(d), s 68, s 69 and s 84 of the GA Act.
As to the authority given to a guardian, if a limited order is sufficient to meet the needs of SM then a plenary order should not be made. If limited guardianship and administration orders are made, the orders must place the least restriction necessary on SM: s 4(5) and s 4(6) of the GA Act.
Under s 108(1)(a) of the GA Act the Tribunal can revoke an enduring power of attorney upon the making of an administration order.
If an administration order is made and the continued operation of an enduring power of attorney would be inconsistent with the functions of the administrator, the Tribunal must revoke the power or vary the enduring power of attorney to remove the inconsistency: s 108(1a) of the GA Act.
The Tribunal may make an order requiring an attorney to file with the Tribunal and serve on an applicant a copy of all records and accounts kept by them of dealings and transactions made by them in connection with the power: s 109(1)(a) of the GA Act.
Under s 110N(1)(a) of the GA Act, the Tribunal can revoke an enduring power of guardianship.

The estate of SM

It is not in dispute that SM and MM are the joint owners (joint tenancy) of the property in which they live (property). MM states there is a mortgage on the property initially for the sum of $125,000 which, although a joint liability with SM, is a loan obtained solely for MM's benefit (to purchase her half share of the property). MM has provided copies of bank statements which she says evidences that she alone makes the mortgage repayments. She says further that she is arranging with the mortgagee for SM's name to be removed from the mortgage.
MM states that SM has a current entitlement to the United Kingdom pension and will become entitled to the Australian pension in 2017. MM has about $1,400 in bank funds and $10,000 is held by the Commonwealth as a deposit against medical expenses, any balance of which will be returned to MM in 2017 when her residency status becomes permanent.

SM's capacity: evidence

The Tribunal has before it a number of reports from medical practitioners and allied health professionals concerning SM's mental state and functioning.
A report from June 2013 from an Aged Care Assessment Team states that SM was then suffering from cognitive decline, had regular shortterm memory problems and suffered from depression and anxiety. MM was reported to be providing all the domestic assistance for SM.
A report from a general practitioner who had last seen SM in June 2015 included reports from the Memory Clinic of Rockingham Hospital from April 2013 to November 2014. SM was diagnosed at that time with a mild dementia, probably of the Alzheimer's type, but was considered able to make most of her decisions. The last report from the Memory Clinic stated that SM had been subject to five falls in the previous six months. SM was assessed to have a good quality of life and there had been no objective deterioration in her cognition.
A report from April 2016 by her current GP assesses SM as having a moderate impairment of cognitive function which has not yet been diagnosed by a specialist medical practitioner. The GP opines that SM's poor memory affects her decisionmaking.
A report from April 2016 from a representative of a community support agency assisting SM, states that she suffers from shortterm memory loss which makes it difficult for her to plan or undergo tasks without support. SM is said to need support when leaving her home and assistance with managing her money. MM is described as SM's carer.
A report from July 2016 from a Home and Community Care assessor reports a cognitive decline in SM. She is considered to be able to follow simple instructions. The assessor states a view that SM is unable to make decisions without relying on MM and that forward planning and budgeting are undertaken by MM. SM is assessed as being able to undertake many of her activities of daily living in her home.
The Public Advocate interviewed SM at her home on 12 May 2016. In a written report filed with the Tribunal on 5 August 2016, the Public Advocate observes that at the beginning of the interview, and at least for approximately 10 minutes, SM appeared very confused and befuddled. The noted confusion continued throughout the interview and it was further observed by the Public Advocate that SM has significant issues with her memory.
In response to specific questions from the Public Advocate, SM initially said that she had four children but thought there could be five; she could not remember all their names; she believed her husband is still alive (he is deceased); she did not believe she had dementia; she was incorrect as to her age; she could not remember the EPA and the EPG, did not know what those documents represented and could not recognise her handwriting or signature.
SM was able to respond to other questions put to her by the Public Advocate (see SM's views and wishes).

The need for guardianship and administration orders

Evidence and submissions of HG (applicant)

HG states that she is the eldest daughter of SM. She alleges that she is prevented from having contact with SM and that she is not consulted about SM's medical and care needs or her financial matters.
HG states that MM will not allow her to come to the property has changed door locks and has told SM not to answer the door if she wants to visit. She says that MM is pursuing a violence restraining order against her.
HG states she was having regular contact with SM until earlier this year when there was an altercation at the property between herself, her husband and MM. Since that time she has been unable to visit SM.
Prior to the altercation HG says she was visiting SM every Wednesday.
HG says that she was becoming concerned that SM was losing weight and that her medications were not being appropriately administered. HG says she was also concerned that from time to time MM would not leave SM with sufficient money to go on an outing with her. MM works fulltime.
Prior to current impasse, HG states that she was informed by SG that MM and PM had taken her to visit nursing homes.
HG says that she is concerned that MM will be able to dispose of the property contrary to the interests of SM.
HG states that she does not trust PM to manage SM's estate.
HG proposes that the Public Advocate be appointed SM's guardian and the Public Trustee her administrator. She wants to reestablish contact with SM and be informed of changes to her health and living arrangements.

Evidence and submissions of MM

MM states that she and SM live in the property. She works full-time. SM is visited by the Alzheimer's Association for a short time on Monday and Tuesday, she attends a church based day centre on Thursday and attends the local autumn centre on Friday. Until recently HG used to visit SM on Wednesday.
MM states that HG never raised any concerns about the care being provided to SG until she stopped contact after HG sent aggressive messages earlier this year.
MM states that she gives SM her medications daily and has an arrangement with the local pharmacist who advises when a prescription is due.
MM says that the loss of weight that has occurred with SM as a consequence of the natural progression of her dementia.
MM states that SM is not in receipt of a community aged care package and is unsure why she appears not to be currently entitled to a package of care.
MM states that she always ensures that SM has sufficient money when going on outings.
MM intends to continue with the application for a violence restraining order against HG on the basis of the alleged verbal and texting abuse and threats she has received. MM states that her relationship with HG has broken down irretrievably and that although she is not opposed to HG having contact with SG she will not allow it to take place on the property.
MM states that CA has not seen SM for seven years and that was a decision that CA made. She says that many years ago CA made false allegations against PM and their late father of a very serious nature which caused great distress and cause the family to fracture.
MM says she holds SM's ATM card because SM has lost the card on many occasions and forgets her access number. MM states that she attends to the household finances and that costs are shared equally by her and SM. She says that she is going through the process of having SM removed from the mortgage.
MM states that PM's spouse assisted her by taking SM to view nursing homes on the basis that she might require respite care if MM ever became ill and could not care for her for a period of time.
MM states that if SM ever needs to go into aged care accommodation she would buyout her interest in the property.
MM says that she is happy for PM to take over the management of SM's finances under the EPA.

Evidence and submission of PM

PM states that he has not used the EPA to date because he has not found the need to do so. However is now prepared to do so and would also consent to his appointment as administrator of SM's estate if the Tribunal decides that such an order should be made.
PM questions the timing of the concerns raised by HG concerning SM's financial affairs. He says that SM always has 'pocket money' for outings.
PM says that HG has accused him of stealing from SM's estate.
Because of the allegations made by CA against him many years ago, he does not want anything to do with her.

Evidence and submissions of CA

CA states that she has not seen SM since 2012 however her counsellor has recommended she try and re-establish contact. This she says cannot occur if MM determines who can have contact with SM.
CA states she is not interested in having a relationship with her siblings.
She says she is unable to comment on recent events.
CA states that she trusts PM to manage SM's finances but is concerned what would happen should the property need to be sold.

SM's views and wishes

A written statement purportedly made by SM has been filed with the Tribunal. In addition the Public Advocate interviewed her on 12 May 2016.
In the written statement SM states that MM takes good care of her and that neither she nor PM has stolen from her. SM says that HG used to visit her once a week and they would go shopping and have coffee and cake. SM says that she may have forgotten her money one time and that might have been 'the start of the trouble'. What followed, according to the written statement, was HG and her spouse trying to change the front door lock and shouting outside of the property that MM and PM were stealing from her. SM states that she now distrusts HG. She also says in her statement that CA has not been a part of her life for many years and 'at present' she wants it to stay that way.
In her interview with the Public Advocate, SM says relevantly that the current troubles have arisen because HG wants to take the property away from her and MM. SM says that she knows this because HG has told other people and she has seen papers proving the intentions of HG.
SM states that HG stopped visiting her because MM is very angry with her. She says her daughters were never close when growing up. SM states that PM visits her every week and that he and MM are very close.
Because of what she perceives to be the intentions of HG, SM states that she is unsure if she wants to see HG again. She says she would not want HG to visit if it caused trouble and upset.

SM told the Public Advocate that CA can visit her but that she had not heard from her in a long time.
SM states that she is not aware of any discussion of nursing homes and cannot recall visiting any. She says she is very happy where she is, which is close to the church and shops, and that the neighbours are friendly.
SM denies she has any health issues.

The Public Advocate

The Public Advocate states that all of the children of SM agree that the family has been in constant conflict since they were children and that SM took a neutral and passive role in the conflicts. With the exception of MM and PM, the children of SM have ceased communicating with each other.
The Public Advocate spoke with SF (SM's daughter who lives overseas), who said that since childhood HG and MM have had periods where they do not get on, reconcile and then resume their conflict. SF said that she believes PM is the only family member who would act in SM's best interests.
The Public Advocate states that apart from PM, MM refuses to provide medical and health care information about SM directly to her siblings. She has also instructed the Alzheimer's Association not to speak to any other person about SM.
The Public Advocate states that she has spoken with MM's longterm financial advisor who advised that because SM is on the title of the property, she had to be a party to the mortgage and would be liable for the mortgage if SM defaulted on the payments. She further advised the Public Advocate that it would be unlikely that MM could change the mortgage.
The Public Advocate states that MM told her that she withdraws money from SM's account through an ATM and pays all of the bills because SM often did not get the required money correctly and is unsure on how to pay the bills. MM also told the Public Advocate that SM is prone to hoard money and this is something which needs to be monitored. SM also has a tendency to lose her ATM card.
The Public Advocate submits that the children of SM are enmeshed in a cycle of conflict and are 'struggling to differentiate between their conflict with each other and the needs of their mother' (Report dated 2 August 2016).
The Public Advocate submits that SM is in need of an independent guardian and administrator. It is submitted that SM was unlikely incapable of executing the EPG and the Public Advocate questions how PM would act on the EPA if a decision needed to be made about the property which conflicted with the interests of MM.

Discussion

SM has a diagnosis of dementia likely of the Alzheimer's type. This diagnosis was made by a specialist medical practitioner in 2012. The evidence shows that SM's dementia mostly manifests in problems with her memory and resultant confusion. She relies mainly on MM to ensure that she is safe and has support. She also relies on MM to forward plan for her care needs and to manage her day to day finances.
I accept the assessment of SM's treating general practitioner when he says that her poor memory affects her decisionmaking.
The interview of SM conducted by the Public Advocate demonstrates, in my view, the sorts of cognitive difficulties experienced by her when faced with novel situations. Her thinking becomes muddled.
Despite the ongoing effects of her dementia on her cognition, SM can express her views and wishes about matters, however, it appears that she does so on the basis of information received principally from her children and she seems not to be any longer capable of informing herself about significant matters that affect her.
It is unfortunate then that there is such conflict in the family because it results in SM being given information that is clouded by the information giver's own bias in the circumstances of the conflict. For example, SM is concerned that HG wants to take the property away from her. There is no evidence presented to the Tribunal to indicate this is the case and it is not known how SM came to that view. However, SM seems to base her view on whether she should see HG at least in part on that concern.
As regards her day to day functioning, SM seems to be able to undertake her basic activities of daily living within the confines of her home.
I am satisfied that because of the unavoidable progression of her dementia, that if left to her own devices SM would be incapable of looking after her own health and safety and that she is in need of oversight and care in the interests of her health and safety.
I am also satisfied on all the evidence that SM is unable to make reasonable judgments about important personal decisions and in the management of her estate.
As I have already mentioned, that is not to say that SM does not have strong views on matters. However, I am satisfied if a decision needed to be made, SM could not now independently go about collecting the relevant information, hold and integrate that information sufficiently to make a reasonable judgment about it. She relies mainly on MM to do that for her.
The question for the Tribunal then is how the decisions for SM should be made, and under what formal authority (if any) should decisionmaking take place.
As regards her personal decisions, SM made an EPG in March 2016 appointing MM as her enduring guardian. I agree with the Public Advocate that there is some concern as to the capacity of SM to execute the EPG at that time given the diagnosis of dementia from 2012. I am also concerned that the document appears flawed because it purports to limit MM's decision making authority at the same time as apparently giving her full authority.
For these and the following reasons I do not accept the EPG should remain in place.
SM is currently living in the property which is jointly owned with MM. There is no suggestion that should change at this time. It is clear that SM is happy with her living conditions. However the decision about SM's accommodation is not fixed because as her care needs increase a decision will eventually be required as to whether she can stay in the property or whether she has to move to an aged care facility. This decision may need to be made sooner rather than later depending on the progression of SM's dementia.
The problem faced by MM if she is given the authority to make the decision about SM's accommodation is that it may conflict with her interests. Those interests are in the property which may need to be sold to fund SM's move to aged care. In saying this I do not mean to question MM's motives or her desire to do what is best for SM. The conflict is inherent in the ownership of the property.
Under s 44(1)(b) of the GA Act a person proposing to be appointed guardian should not be in a position where their interests conflict or may conflict with the interests of the person. This provision is not expressly stated to apply in the case of an EPG (Pt 9A of the GA Act), presumably because if a capable person makes an EPG they would be supposed to take such conflicts into account. However, an EPG comes into operation only when the person (in this case SM) is unable to make reasonable judgments about personal matters and at that time of course they are unable themselves to manage conflicts of interest when they arise and therefore rely on the enduring guardian who has a fiduciary duty to them.
It is because of this that I must appoint the Public Advocate as SM's guardian to make decisions about her accommodation needs as that is where the conflict of interest sits.
Because the accessibility and provision of support services to SM is fundamental to the decision about accommodation options available to her at any one time, I will also give services authority to the Public Advocate. SM currently does not receive a community aged care package through the Aged Care Assessment Team process and it may be helpful for that service provision to be investigated.
Another decisionmaking problem concerns the contact SM has with her children. MM has made her view very clear on this matter and states she will continue to pursue a violence restraining order against HG. This is her right but the right of SM to have contact with, in the current circumstances, HG and CA, is effectively foreclosed by the position MM has taken. MM has said that she is not opposed to contact but it cannot take place in the property. However, even in this limited sense, contact cannot be arranged because the children in question have stopped communicating.
I must therefore appoint the Public Advocate as SM's guardian to decide what contact, if any, SM should have with others and the extent of that contact.
A person's medical conditions and their treatment are extremely personal matters and if the person loses the capacity to give consent to treatment, generally speaking it is a family member (spouse, child, sibling) who assumes that role and for understandable reasons. The family member knows the person intimately and is therefore able to give a nuanced account of the person's symptoms and idiosyncrasies allowing for the best individualised treatment to be given. The family member is also, generally speaking, especially available when treatment decisions need to be made.
This is acknowledged in the GA Act through the person responsible provisions (Pt 9C).
I accept that MM currently undertakes for SM the role I have just described. There is no evidence that she is not doing so diligently and appropriately. A problem has arisen only in that MM will not communicate medical information to some of her siblings. This is a product of the conflict between SM's children.
I do not think that is sufficient reason to remove the treatment decisionmaking authority from MM, particularly given that she is SM's current primary carer. However, I consider it is in SM's best interests that all her children be given information about significant medical events such as hospitalisations. To achieve this I will appoint MM as guardian for SM to make her treatment decisions but conditional upon MM advising the Public Advocate of the events I have mentioned to inform the decisionmaking role of the Public Advocate and also to enable SM's other children to be advised.
In making a guardianship order which is inconsistent with the authority given to MM under the EPG, I will revoke the EPG.
SM's estate is currently managed on a daytoday basis by MM. PM states that he is willing to take on that role either under the EPA or under an administration order. This is supported by SM's children except HG.
There are two concerns that must be overcome if I am to allow PM to manage SM's estate. First the mortgage on the property, which is currently held jointly by MM and SM, must be changed to release SM from that liability or some other means found to achieve that same effect. This has particular relevance if the property needs to be sold at some point. Secondly, I need to be convinced that if SM goes into an aged care facility, then PM will make the decision about what is to happen to SM's share of the property solely, in what is in her best interests.
As to the first matter, there is nothing before me to suggest that SM gifted her joint liability in the mortgage to MM. I can infer from the fact that MM makes the mortgage payments, and says that she is presently arranging for SM to be removed from the mortgage, that SM initially proceeded on the basis that her liability would never crystallise.
Contrary to the evidence of MM, the evidence of the Public Advocate, after speaking with MM's financial advisor, is that it would be difficult ('unlikely') that SM be able to be removed from the mortgage.
As to the second matter, I am willing to take at face value that PM would make a decision in SM's best interests and, in addition, the Public Advocate would be effectively monitoring that situation because of her role as accommodation decision-maker.
It is also the case that in the making of the EPA, SM expressed a clear wish that it is PM that she wanted to manage her estate should she no longer be able to do so.
I have decided that PM should be given that authority but under an administration order rather than the EPA, and subject to a direction that he arrange for SM to be released from her liability under the mortgage and to advise the Tribunal and the Public Trustee when that is done.
I will revoke the EPA given that it has been overtaken by the administration order: s 108(1)(a) of the GA Act.
I will set the review of the guardianship and administration orders in five years: s 84 of the GA Act.
As to the application made under s 109(1)(a) of the GA Act, I accept the evidence of PM that he has not acted under EPA and will therefore dismiss that application.

Orders

The Tribunal declares that [SM];
(a)is unable, by reason of a mental disability, to make reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to all of her estate; and
(b)is in need of an administrator of her estate,

and the Tribunal orders that:
1.[PM] of [address withheld] is appointed plenary administrator of the estate of [SM] with all the powers and duties conferred by the Act.
(a)The administrator is directed to arrange for [SM] to be released from any liability in respect to the mortgage currently held on the property at [address withheld].
(b)The administrator must inform the Tribunal and the Public Trustee when (a) is complete but in any case must advise of the status of the mortgage no later than three months from the date of this order.

2.The enduring power of attorney dated 19 September 2013 by which [SM] appointed [PM] to be her attorney, is revoked.
3.The administration order is to be reviewed by 5 September 2021.

The Tribunal declares that the represented person [SM];
(a)is incapable of looking after her own health and safety;
(b)is unable to make reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to her person;
(c)is in need of oversight, care or control in the interests of her own health and safety; and
(d)is in need of a guardian,
and the Tribunal orders that:
1.[MM] of [address withheld] is appointed limited guardian of the represented person with the following function:
(a)Subject to Division 3 of Part 5 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), to make treatment decisions for the represented person.
2.The appointment of [MM] as limited guardian is subject to the condition that she inform the Public Advocate of any significant medical event in respect to the represented person including but not limited to, hospitalisations. The Public Advocate is permitted to pass that medical information to the represented person's children.
3.The Public Advocate of David Malcolm Justice Centre, Level 23, 28 Barrack Street, Perth, Western Australia be appointed limited guardian of the represented person with the following functions:
(a)To decide where the represented person is to live, whether permanently or temporarily;
(b)To decide with whom the represented person is to live;
(c)To determine what contact, if any, the represented person should have with others and the extent of that contact; and
(d)To determine the services to which the represented person should have access.
4.The Tribunal approves delegation by the Public Advocate of her functions as guardian of the represented person to an officer or employee employed in the Office of the Public Advocate.
5.The guardianship order is to be reviewed by 5 September 2021.

I certify that this and the preceding [117] paragraphs comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
___________________________________
MR J MANSVELD, SENIOR MEMBER