CNQ v NSW Trustee and Guardian [2017] NSWCATAD 32

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: CNQ v NSW Trustee and Guardian [2017] NSWCATAD 32 Hearing dates: 5 December 2016 Date of orders: 16 February 2017 Decision date: 16 February 2017 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: C Grant, Senior Member Decision: Decision by the NSW Trustee & Guardian that the protected person continue to reside in the Aged care facility is affirmed. Catchwords: GUARDIANSHIP – Decision as to appropriate care facility – decision affirmed Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 Guardianship Act 1987 Guardianship Regulations 2010 Category: Principal judgment Parties: CNQ (Applicant) NSW Trustee & Guardian (First Respondent) RB (Second Respondent) RC (Third Respondent Representation: Solicitors: CNQ (Applicant in person) Crown Solicitors Office (First Respondent) RB (Second Respondent in person) RC (Third Respondent in person) File Number(s): 1610435 Publication restriction: Section 64 (1) Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 - Restriction on publication of information that will identify the applicant, any victims, witnesses or evidence given and received in this Tribunal hearing or in relation to the proceedings which is likely to identify those persons.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction 1. This is an application by the daughter of the protected person to review a decision of the Public Guardian regarding accommodation. The protected person will in this decision be referred to as 'the mother' and the applicant daughter as 'AB'. The mother has a disability being dementia and is under a Guardianship Order allocating functions including accommodation and health care to the Public Guardian. The mother has resided in an aged care facility located in Sydney since November 2014. This facility will be called 'XYZ care facility' in this decision. AB believed this facility was not providing quality care to the mother, who was deteriorating in her health. AB proposed alternative aged care facilities for the mother. On the 10 May 2016, the Public Guardian decided that the mother continue to live at XYZ care facility and this was affirmed on internal review on 17 June 2016. AB seeks a review of this decision. The Tribunal must decide in these proceedings whether this is the correct and preferable decision. 2. The second and third respondent in these proceedings are two of the other adult children of the mother and they will be referred in this decision as 'RB' and 'RC'. Both RB and RC agree with the decision of the Public Guardian and oppose the application. The remaining two adult children also wish their mother to remain living at XYZ care facility and oppose the application.