TOS-N (No3) (Guardianship)

[2009] TASGAB 25

GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION BOARD
HOBART

TOS-N review of guardianship order of Board’s own motion

Neutral citation: TOS-N (No3) (Guardianship) [2009] TASGAB 25

REASONS FOR DECISION

Anita Smith (President)

Guardianship – review of order – decision about supported accommodation – represented person disagrees with need for support in accommodation
Guardianship and Administration Act 1995 s 20, 21, 67

1. The represented person, TOS-N, has been the subject of a limited guardianship order since 13 May 2008.  That order remains in effect until 12 May 2011.   The represented person sought a review of that order which was heard on 29 August 2008 together with a request for advice and directions by the guardian.   The guardian’s powers were amended slightly, but the request for review was dismissed.  The represented person is also subject to an administration order which will remain in effect until 1 March 2010.  In making the order on 29 August 2008, the Board included a provision to review the operation of the order on or about 11 November 2009.  This decision relates to that review.

2. The Board produced statements of reasons for the limited guardianship order dated 13 May 2008 and the advice and direction to the guardian dated 29 August 2008 which explain the basis for the guardianship order.

1. The review was heard on 26 November 2009.  It was attended by:

   TOS-N,
   MN, her advocate,
   Margaret Colville, the Deputy Public Guardian,
   MD, [Residential Facility]

2. At the hearing the Deputy Public Guardian confirmed that in accordance with the order the represented person’s passport had been confiscated and the guardian had made a decision that the represented person live at [Residential Facility].  The guardian confirmed that [Residential Facility] offers a suitable level of support for the represented person’s needs and appeared to the guardian to be the only suitable place for her to live.  MD confirmed the level of support that is available for the represented person at [Residential Facility] is appropriate. 

1. No medical evidence was offered that suggested that there has been any change in the represented person’s underlying disability or her capacity to make reasonable decisions.  The represented person did assert that she no longer drinks alcohol and MD noted that this assertion appears to be correct.

2. The represented person disputed the need for a guardian, disputed that she needs supported accommodation and reinforced her desire to work in universities overseas.  She stated that she would leave [Residential Facility] if she was not under guardianship.  She believes that the presence of other persons at [Residential Facility] who require a higher level of personal care means that she is wrongly placed at [Residential Facility].

3. The guardian noted that other supported accommodation options may have been suitable and had been tried but the represented person’s behaviour at those places meant that those services have refused to offer accommodation to her.   The supported accommodation choices available to the represented person are therefore limited.

4. Because the represented person continues to lack insight into the level of support that she requires in her accommodation and continues to pursue a desire to work overseas (both issues that lead to the making of the order), there remains a need for a guardianship order. 

THE BOARD ORDERS

1. That Public Guardian continue as the represented person’s guardian.

2. That the powers and duties of the guardian are limited to decisions concerning:

1. both temporary and permanent accommodation for the represented person and

2. the level of support required by the represented person in such accommodation, and

3. the issuing or use of a passport, and overseas travel.

1. That this order remains in effect until the 12 May 2011.

Anita Smith    
PRESIDENT