UTW

[2016] NSWCATGD 43

NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	UTW [2016] NSWCATGD 43
Hearing dates:	25 August 2016
Date of orders:	25 August 2016
Decision date:	25 August 2016
Jurisdiction:	Guardianship Division
Before:	J Simpson, Senior Member (Legal) Dr M Martin, Senior Member (Professional) L Porter, General Member (Community)
Decision:	1. A guardianship order is made for Mr UTW. 2. The Public Guardian is appointed as the guardian. 3. This is a continuing guardianship order for a period of 3 years from the date of this order. 4. This is a limited guardianship order giving the guardian custody of Mr UTW to the extent necessary to carry out the accommodation and services functions.
Catchwords:	GUARDIANSHIP – application for guardianship order – National Disability Insurance Scheme – no family or advocate – access to NDIS – NDIS first and second planning processes – transfer of Ageing, Disability and Home Care ADHC accommodation service to non-government sector – Public Guardian appointed
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Mr UTW (subject person) Ms CRN (applicant) The NSW Public Guardian
Representation:	Nil
File Number(s):	62823
Publication restriction:	Decisions of the Guardianship Division of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal have been anonymised to remove any information that may identify any person involved in the Tribunal’s proceedings (s 65, Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)).

REASONS FOR DECISION

What the Tribunal decided

1. The Tribunal appointed the Public Guardian for three years to make decisions for Mr UTW about accommodation and services issues.

Background

2. Mr UTW is a 64-year-old man with an intellectual disability who lives at an Ageing, Disability and Home Care (ADHC) facility (the ADHC facility) in regional NSW. Mr UTW will shortly transition from his service being funded by ADHC to the service being funded by the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). Ms CRN, registered nurse from the ADHC facility, applied for a guardianship order so that a guardian could make decisions for Mr UTW through this process.

What did the Tribunal have to decide?

3. The Tribunal had to decide:

1. Does Mr UTW have a disability which prevents him from being able to make some important life decisions?

2. Should the Tribunal make a guardianship order and if so, what order should be made?

3. Who should be the guardian?

4. How long should the order last?

Decision

4. From the reports of the applicant and a psychologist, the Tribunal accepted that Mr UTW has a severe intellectual disability with profound deafness and extremely limited verbal communication. These disabilities prevent Mr UTW from being able to make important life decisions.

5. Mr UTW has no involved family or friends from outside the ADHC facility to make the necessary request for Mr UTW to become a participant in the NDIS. There is also no family or other advocate to advocate for Mr UTW in the first and second NDIS planning processes that will deal with the maintenance and possible enhancement and change of the support provided to Mr UTW.

6. Also, there is no advocate to safeguard Mr UTW’s interests in the current ADHC process of the ADHC facility being tendered out to the non-government sector.

7. Mr Kearton from the Public Guardian suggested that guardianship was needed in relation to accommodation and services issues but was less sure about health decisions. From the evidence of Ms CRN, Mr UTW’s health appears to be reasonably stable with appropriate medical care from a general practitioner and neurologist.

8. The Tribunal was clear that guardianship was needed in relation to accommodation and services issues in view of NDIS implementation and the ADHC transfer of services. The guardian can pursue appropriate services and consider whether any accommodation change should be pursued.

9. The Tribunal did not see guardianship is needed in relation to health decisions. If consent is required for some major medical treatment or otherwise, it can be sought direct from the Tribunal.

10. In the absence of an alternative, the Tribunal appointed the Public Guardian.

11. Mr UTW has permanent disabilities and is unlikely to become able to make important life decisions. He needs a guardian for at least the period of his first and second NDIS plans and to allow his new support arrangements from these to be bedded down. The Tribunal made a guardianship order for three years.

**********

I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales.

Registrar