CJE [2014] QCAT 355

CITATION: CJE [2014] QCAT 355 PARTIES: CJE APPLICATION NUMBER: GAA4465-14 MATTER TYPE: Guardianship and administration matters for adults HEARING DATE: On the papers HEARD AT: Brisbane DECISION OF: Senior Member Endicott DELIVERED ON: 3 June 2014 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane ORDERS MADE: The application for an interim order is dismissed. CATCHWORDS: GUARDIANSHIP – where adult with delusional ideation refusing treatment – where adult under a forensic order – where adult in hospital and too unwell to discharge INTERIM ORDER – where interim appointment of guardian and administrator sought – where Adult Guardian was already statutory health attorney – where no personal decisions other than health care associated with mental illness needed to be currently made – where bills to be paid and some financial liabilities outstanding – where no evidence that adult’s financial position at risk through recovery action or from forfeiture of property IMMEDIATE RISK OF HARM – where no evidence of immediate risk of harm – where no basis for making interim appointments Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 s 129 -- 1 of 3 -- 2 APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any): This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (QCAT Act). REASONS FOR DECISION [1] CJE is 75 years of age and is an inpatient in an older persons ward at a regional hospital. According to evidence presented to the tribunal, he was diagnosed with a delusional disorder and demonstrated grandiose ideation about his ability to engage in high level business transactions. He demonstrated fixed and inaccurate beliefs regarding his mental state and treatment. [2] Evidence was presented to the tribunal that CJE had a history of stalking behaviour and potential paraphilic sexual interests and he had been charged with a number of child pornography and child abuse offences together with charges of stalking and breaches of a domestic violence order. He did not identify his mental health difficulties and he did not see a need for clinical intervention. [3] The evidence provided to the tribunal indicated that there was a basis for a finding that CJE had impaired decision making capacity and that he was likely to act on his delusional ideation, he had poor insight and he would tend to act impulsively without consideration of the consequences. [4] A social worker from the hospital applied to the tribunal for the appointment of a guardian and administrator for CJE. The tribunal has the power to appoint guardians and administrators to make decisions for adults with impaired decision making capacity. Appointments are made if the tribunal is satisfied that the presumption of capacity has been rebutted by satisfactory evidence and the tribunal is satisfied by the evidence produced at a hearing that there is a need for a decision maker. [5] The tribunal can make an appointment of a decision maker on an interim basis for up to three months under section 129 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 without holding a hearing. The social worker had also applied for an interim appointment. Before an interim order can be made, the tribunal must be satisfied, on reasonable grounds, that there is an immediate risk of harm to the welfare or property of the adult concerned. [6] The evidence provided to the tribunal was that CJE was currently very unwell but he had refused to accept or even discuss appropriate treatment. He was subject to a forensic order under the Mental Health Act 2000. He did not have a next of kin or a statutory health attorney to make decisions for him. The social worker sought the interim appointment of the Adult Guardian to make decisions about health care, personal care, welfare and other decisions about his life and life circumstances. -- 2 of 3 -- 3 [7] The evidence did not satisfy the tribunal that CJE was at an immediate risk of harm that gave rise to the need for an interim appointment of a guardian. He was safe in hospital, he was subject to a forensic order under which he could receive involuntary treatment for his mental illness, and he was unwell and not ready to be discharged from hospital. Although his delusional beliefs and actions put his welfare and health at risk, there were already adequate supports in place with his hospitalisation and the forensic order to meet his mental health care needs. [8] I was not satisfied that the appointment of a guardian would add any further support to his current circumstances. In any event, if there were a need for health care consents to be given outside the scope of the forensic order, the Adult Guardian was already a statutory health attorney of last resort for CJE. The need for other personal decisions, such as post discharge accommodation and services, had not yet arisen and could be more appropriately discussed at the hearing of the application for the appointment of the guardian at a later time. [9] The social worker had submitted that there was a need for an interim appointment of an administrator for CJE. There was evidence presented that CJE had a history of inappropriate spending on extravagant unneeded items. This expenditure was said to be made before his bills are paid and he has a history of bankruptcy. The social worker submitted that CJE’s personal property was in storage while he was in hospital and he had unpaid bills that needed attention. [10] I was not satisfied that the evidence had established that CJE was at an immediate risk of harm due to his financial circumstances. His bills may not have been paid but there was no evidence that recovery action was under way or that he would forfeit his goods due to any outstanding financial liabilities. There is nothing unusual in a person incurring financial liabilities while they are unwell and in hospital. [11] There needs to be evidence that immediate action is warranted if an interim appointment is to be made. The mere existence of overdue liabilities or bills to be paid is not enough in most cases to result in a finding that there is an immediate risk of harm. [12] In the absence of satisfactory evidence that CJE was at an immediate risk of harm, the application for an interim order was dismissed. -- 3 of 3 --