TZD

In the matter of TZD, the court heard an application for a guardianship order concerning the use of restraint in an aged care setting. The dispute involved the appointment of a guardian to make decisions regarding the use of restrictive practices, including chemical restraint, for the benefit of TZD, who was experiencing psychotic episodes. The legal issues before the court included whether the guardianship order was necessary, the appropriateness of the proposed guardian, and the conditions under which restrictive practices could be authorised.

The court found that the guardianship order was necessary due to TZD's condition and the need for oversight in the use of restrictive practices. The court considered the evidence and concluded that DAJ, the proposed guardian, was suitable for the role. The court also outlined specific conditions for the use of restrictive practices, requiring them to be used as a last resort and in accordance with a care and support plan that detailed the behaviours addressed, the necessity of the restraints, non-pharmacological strategies, and provisions for review.

The court granted the application for a guardianship order and appointed DAJ as the guardian of TZD. The order was made for a period of 12 months and included specific functions related to the use of restrictive practices, with conditions that the guardian must seek TZD's understanding and views before making significant decisions and only consent to the use of restraints under strict criteria.

The final orders included the dismissal of an application for consent to medical treatment as the applicant had withdrawn it, and the approval of the guardianship order with specified functions and conditions for the use of restrictive practices.