TWC (Review Guardianship)

[2011] TASGAB 21

GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION BOARD
LAUNCESTON

TWC on the application of THE PUBLIC GUARDIAN

Neutral citation: TWC (Review Guardianship) [2011] TASGAB 21

REASONS FOR DECISION

Susan Hill (Member)

Guardianship - review of guardianship – whether full order necessary – least restrictive alternative

Guardianship and Administration Act 1995 Sections 20, 65

1. This was an application for a review of the guardianship order made on the 23^rd July 2010 whereby the Public Guardian was appointed under a plenary order as guardian of TWC for a period of 3 years.

1. The review was applied for by the Public Guardian seeking a variation of the order to one limited to accommodation matters only Present at the hearing on the 16^th September 2011 were TWC, NC (her daughter), Kylie Hillier and Pat Clark (Office of the Public Guardian) as well as David Symonds (Public Trustee) and Presbyterian Care staff, Alan and Marlene.

1. TWC was reported in the initial hearing as having a long history of schizoaffective disorder complicated by some cognitive impairment. This was based on the Health Care Professional Report prepared by Dr.Wahib and supported by the ACAT report and the applicant Jennifer Hayes (her then case manager). It was also supported by her daughter, NC, who had been finding it increasingly difficult to assist her mother with not only financial, but also medication and other lifestyle issues.

1. Ms. Hillier had supplied a report and also gave evidence that TWC had not objected to any of the decisions she had made, except for moving to the Presbyterian Care facility at XXXX. She felt that TWC was not settled there and talked about leaving, thinking that she could live independently.  This idea was contrary to all the information, in particular the ACAT report. In all other matters, particularly medication, Ms. Hillier felt that TWC was totally co-operative and compliant and Ms. Hillier felt that the original order could now be limited to accommodation decisions only.  Ms. Hillier also said that there had been discussions as to whether she could live with NC but that it was felt that this would place too much stress on the relationship.

1. TWC questioned why she was under the order and why she needed to be in care. She is not accepting of the fact that her disability dictates that she needs supported accommodation.

1. The Board sought the opinion of NC and the staff members who felt that it was a good solution for TWC to be in her present accommodation where she could have some independence at the same time having support as she required it. She is not in a secure unit and can come and go and in addition spends some time at NC’s home, but still has the support required to ensure her safety and medication regime is adhered to.

1. After hearing from all parties, in particular the officer of the Public Guardian, Ms. Hillier, who saw only the question of accommodation as becoming an issue, the Board agreed that a plenary order was no longer necessary. However it finds that TWC has a disability leading to incapacity to make decisions as to accommodation and as a result is in need of a guardian in this area.

THE BOARD ORDERS:

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

2. That the powers and duties of the guardian are limited to decisions concerning where the represented person is to live either permanently or temporarily.

3. That the order remains in effect to 22 July 2013.

Susan Hill (Member)

Date of decision: 16th September 2011