XIJB (Review Administration)
[2015] TASGAB 20
•13 November 2015
GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION BOARD
Hobart
XIJB - Review of administration order
XIJB (Review Administration) [2015] TASGAB 20
REASONS FOR DECISION
Wendy Hudson (Chair)
Date of hearing: 13 November 2015
Review administration – capacity to manage day to day finances
Guardianship and Administration Act 1995 s.6, 51, 67, 68
On 13 November 2015 the Guardianship and Administration Board (the Board) reviewed an administration order for XIJB. The Public Trustee was initially appointed by the Board as XIJB’s administrator on 20 June 2014 to manage all of his finances. On 14 July 2015 XIJB requested a review of the order, stating ‘I can be responsible for my own money’. On 7 August 2015 the Board amended the original order to include a six month trial whereby XIJB was responsible for his pension. However, shortly after the original order was amended, the Board received evidence that XIJB was not managing his funds well; making impulsive decisions, spending his full pension in one day; asking Centrelink to cancel his Centrepay deductions and making enquiries regarding Centrelink loans. Consequently, the Board reviewed the order on 22 September 2015, and determined that the trial should cease, and the original administration order should continue with The Public Trustee managing all of XIJB’s finances. The current order was to remain in effect until 19 June 2017. On 15 October 2015 the Board received another request from XIJB to review the order, stating ‘In previous months my ability to budget and responsibility for managing my own money has changed’.
XIJB, Ms Joanne McGuiness and Ms Christine Lay from The Public Trustee, Ms Tracey Withers, case manager, Community Forensic Mental Health Service attended the hearing to review the administration order.
In reviewing an administration order the Board considers the requirements of section 51 of the Guardianship and Administration Act (the Act) and the principles set out in section 6 of the Act, before deciding whether to vary or continue an order under section 68 of the Act or to allow the order to lapse. The questions for the Board to consider are - whether XIJB has a disability, and as a result is unable to make reasonable judgements in respect of matters relating to all or any part of his estate, and whether there is an ongoing need for an administrator. The Board must also consider the least restrictive option, what is in the best interests of XIJB and XIJB’s wishes.
Does XIJB have a disability?
Is XIJB unable by reason of his disability to make reasonable judgements about his estate?
The health care professional report completed by Dr Michael Evenhuis, consultant psychiatrist, on 27 February 2014 advised that he has known XIJB for 8 years, XIJB has schizophrenia, and that it is fluctuating, noting that XIJB had previously responded well to treatment but not on this occasion. Dr Evenhuis was of the opinion that XIJB’s disability impacted on his impulse control, capacity for new learning, and planning and reasoning skills, and made him susceptible to influence. In response to the question – ‘What, in your view, might be the consequences of appointing or not appointing a guardian or administrator for the person?’ – Dr Evenhuis stated ‘In the absence of an administrator, XIJB is likely to continue experience difficulties with budgeting and impulsive spending, this could potentially impact on his health due to his tendency to prioritize other expenses over food. He is also likely to remain vulnerable to financial exploitation and he is more likely to make impulsive decisions about travel. If an administrator is appointed, XIJB is more likely to be able to put aside money for longer term goals and he is less likely to run out of funds for tobacco and food…’.
Prior to the review, XIJB obtained a health care professional report from his general practitioner, Dr John Madden dated 27 October 2015. Dr Madden stated that he had known XIJB for two years, XIJB has schizophrenia and that it is fluctuating, noting that there is a ‘high probability of ongoing psychiatric symptoms, functional problems’. Dr Madden was of the view that XIJB’s schizophrenia impacted on his impulse control, planning and reasoning skills, and made him susceptible to influence. When asked, ‘To what extent does the person appreciate the nature and extent of his property…?’, Dr Madden stated that he had not had the opportunity to assess XIJB in regard to his understanding of the nature and extent of his private property. Dr Madden further indicated that he felt there was a lack of empirical evidence to provide a clear case for/against XIJB being capable of making reasonable decisions in relation to his finances and that XIJB should be given the opportunity to trial management of his property.
The Board also received further evidence from Dr Evenhuis dated 12 November 2015. Dr Evenhuis remained of the opinion that XIJB had not regained his capacity to manage his finances; ‘…his mental state and judgement continues to fluctuate, he remains impulsive and he continues to express bizarre ideas about financial matters…He continues to develop delusional beliefs in response to auditory hallucinations and has problems with planning.’
The Board preferred the evidence of Dr Evenhuis because he has a long standing relationship with XIJB and has expertise in the area of schizophrenia. Dr Madden on the other hand, acknowledged that he had attended to XIJB’s general health rather than his psychiatric issues and was not aware that there had already been an unsuccessful trial whereby XIJB managed his pension, which had ceased. Given the opinion of Dr Evenhuis, the Board was satisfied that XIJB is a person with a disability and that by reason of his disability; he is unable to make reasonable decisions in relation to his finances.
Does XIJB need an administrator?
XIJB stated that the money he received from The Public Trustee was too hard to live on; he never had enough money; and he needed more money. XIJB’s main concern at the hearing was the amount he was receiving from The Public Trustee, rather than whether he needed an administrator. At the end of the day however, the amount of money available to XIJB whilst on a pension is the same irrespective of who is managing the sum.
XIJB had in the past, bought a car but unfortunately he didn’t show any insight into managing his own finances in relation to the costs of running a car and as a result the car was sold. When the order was amended and XIJB received his pension, he bought the same car again. He then discovered that he couldn’t afford petrol or plan for the payment of registration, maintenance or insurance. The car was sold once more.
In the letter to the Board of 12 November 2015, Dr Evenhuis stated that he remained of the opinion that XIJB continued to lack the capacity to manage his own finances. Given that the previous trial had not been successful and no further evidence was available to support XIJB’s view that he was able to manage his finances; the Board was satisfied that XIJB continues to need an administrator to manage his day-to-day finances as well as his accumulated funds, to ensure his essential needs are met.
XIJB’ wishes, what is in his best interests and the least restrictive alternative
The Board recognises XIJB wish to manage his pension; however the Board did not consider that his best interests would in fact be met by allowing him to manage his pension. The Board also considered, given the result of the previous trial, that there was no less restrictive alternative available to XIJB and that his best interests would be met with the continuation of the administration order.
XIJB was advised that the medical evidence provided was not sufficient to lead to a change in the order and that it would be reviewed on or before 19 June 2017. Within that time, the Board encouraged XIJB to work closely with his case manager and that once he had evidence that he was able to manage his day-to-day finances, he could present that evidence and further medical evidence to the Board for their consideration. The Board also advised XIJB that although he may feel restricted by the terms of the order, the order is made to protect him and was in his best interests.
Conclusion
After hearing a review of an administration order made on 20 June 2014 in respect of XIJB (hereinafter called the ‘represented person’)
The Board was satisfied that the represented person:
is a person with a disability, and
is unable by reason of the disability to make reasonable judgements in respect of his estate, and
is in need of an administrator;
THE BOARD ORDERS
That The Public Trustee continue as the represented person’s administrator.
That the powers and duties of the administrator be those conferred by Division 4 of Part 7 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1995.
That the administration order remains in effect until 19 June 2017.
Wendy Hudson
Chair
0
0
1