UMI (Withdraw Guardianship)

Case [2018] TASGAB 23


GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISRATION BOARD
HOBART

UMI (Withdraw Guardianship) [2018] TASGAB 23

STATEMENT OF REASONS

Before: Rowena Holder

Date of decision: 17 September 2018

Request to withdraw application - withdrawal not approved by Board
Guardianship and Administration Act 1995

Background

  1. An Application for Guardianship dated 3rd August 2018 concerning UMI (the Application) was made by the Applicant, Ms Rhian Jeffres, social worker at the Roy Fagan Centre and received by the Board on the 6th August 2018. 

  2. The Guardianship and Administration Board (the Board) received a Request to Withdraw an Application for Guardianship concerning UMI from the Applicant dated 4th September 2018.

  3. On the 13th September 2018 the Board considered the Request to Withdraw and determined not to approve it.  The Public Guardian has requested a Statement of Reasons by email dated 13th September 2018.

Determination

  1. Schedule 2, Part 1, Clause 6 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1995 (the Act) contains the relevant provision relating to withdrawal of applications, which provides:

    The Board may allow a person to withdraw an application at any time before it is determined.

  2. The granting of leave to withdraw an application is not automatic. The withdrawal of an application is an exercise of discretion on the part of the Board. 

  3. Pursuant to section 11(2)(b) of the Act, the Board is obliged to accord procedural fairness to all parties and interested persons in the proceedings.

  4. As such, parties who have been notified of the Application and the listing of the hearing, should be afforded an opportunity to be heard before the Board exercises its powers pursuant to Schedule 2, Part 1 Clause 6 of the Act.

  5. The Application details that the UMI’s primary carer is SS, daughter. The Application also details that others concerned for the UMI’s welfare include another daughter, TX who was proposed by the Applicant as suitable to be guardian, a son HI, a son EI and daughter BI.  The Board Registry sent hearing notices to all these persons who were deemed to have a proper interest in proceedings.

  6. The Applicant stated in the Request to Withdraw “I have spoken with Valerie Hannon, who supported the request to withdraw.  I attempted to phone daughters SS and TX, but was unsuccessful in making contact.”  No mention was made of whether contact had been attempted with the other interested parties, HI and EI.  The Board has no evidence before it as to the views of any of the interested persons, noted above.

  7. The Application for Guardianship will therefore proceed to hearing on the 20th September 2018.

THE BOARD DETERMINES

  1. That the Request to Withdraw an Application for Guardianship is not approved.

Details
AGLC
UMI (Withdraw Guardianship) [2018] TASGAB 23
Case
[2018] TASGAB 23
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved a request by a Board appointed as a guardian of a child, UMI, to withdraw from the position of guardianship. The Board sought to have its application to withdraw from the role approved by the court. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The court needed to consider the legal standards and criteria applicable in determining whether the Board's application to withdraw should be approved. The court needed to assess the impact of the withdrawal on the welfare and best interests of UMI, the child involved in the case.

The court held that the Board's application to withdraw as guardian was not in the best interests of UMI. The court found that the Board had not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the withdrawal was in the best interests of the child. The court emphasised the paramount consideration of the child's welfare and best interests in such matters. The court also noted that the Board's decision to withdraw could potentially result in a significant disruption to UMI's life and stability. The court ultimately decided that the Board's application to withdraw should not be approved.

The court's decision was final, and the Board's application to withdraw as guardian was not approved. The court's decision was based on the assessment of the child's welfare and best interests, and the lack of sufficient evidence provided by the Board to support its application. The court's decision ensured that the child's welfare and best interests remained the paramount consideration in the matter.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.