GML [2026] VCAT 253 (10 April 2026)

GML [2026] VCAT 253

Appointment of guardian

VCAT orders that:

1. The following people are appointed joint and several guardians for GML:

QQD, [redacted]

JNE, [redacted]

VBJ, [redacted]

1. The guardians have power to make decisions about these personal matters:
   • - medical treatment
   • - the support services that are provided to GML,
2. Guardians must comply with the Guardianship and Administration Act 2019, which outlines their powers and duties.

Appointment of administrator

VCAT orders that:

QQD, [redacted] is appointed administrator for GML.

1. The administrator has power to make decisions about all financial matters.
2. The administrators have powers given under the Guardianship and Administration Act 2019 section:
   • - 46(1)
   • - 52,
   • - 51
3. Administrators must comply with the Guardianship and Administration Act 2019, which outlines their powers and duties.
4. The administrator must complete and send to VCAT for approval a Financial Statement and Plan no later than 07 April 2026.
5. The administrators must prepare an annual Account by Administrator. They must submit the first ABA:
   • - for the accounting period: 24 February 2026 to 30 June 2026.
   • - As soon as practicable after 30 June but no later than 30 September 2026.
   • - to be examined by State Trustees Limited, who may charge the estate an approved examination fee.

• - for each financial year, from 1 July to the following 30 June,
• - as soon as possible after 30 June, and no later than 30 September in each year.

VCAT makes this decision because it is satisfied that:

• - due to a disability, GML does not have capacity to make decisions about the personal and financial matters listed in this order,
• - GML needs a guardian and administrator, considering the factors set out in section 31 of the Act, including their will and preferences (what's important to them), and
• - this order will promote the personal and social wellbeing of GML.

1. This order applies until VCAT makes another order.
2. Anyone can apply for VCAT to reassess this order at any time.
3. VCAT is due to reassess this administration order by 31 March 2029.
4. VCAT will automatically schedule a hearing and notify the parties and interested persons when the reassessment hearing can be scheduled. Unless VCAT makes a new order that cancels (revokes) this order, this order does not expire, even if a reassessment does not take place until after the above date.

VCAT is due to reassess this guardianship order by 31 March 2029.

VCAT will automatically schedule a hearing and notify the parties and interested persons when the reassessment hearing can be scheduled. Unless VCAT makes a new order that cancels (revokes) this order, this order does not expire, even if a reassessment does not take place until after the above date.

Change of contact details

1. If any of the guardians, administrators or GML change contact details (email, phone or address), one of the guardians or administrators must immediately inform VCAT in writing.

The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) is providing these reasons on a confidential basis. Clause 37(1) of Schedule 1 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic) provides that unless VCAT orders otherwise, a person must not publish or broadcast any report of a proceeding under the Guardianship and Administration Act 2019 (Vic) that identifies or could lead to the identification of a party to the proceeding.**

1. In these reasons for decision, I refer to the person who is the subject of the application as GML. The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal ('VCAT') has given the person that anonymised name to protect their identity and the confidentiality of their personal information.
2. GML is an 83‑year‑old woman who lives with her husband, VBJ, in their home in the outer suburbs of Melbourne. They have been married for approximately 50 years and have three adult children: QQD, the applicant in these proceedings, JNE, and LGB. GML, VBJ, QQD and JNE live in Melbourne; LGB resides in Queensland.
3. On 2 September 2025, QQD applied to be appointed administrator for GML and to be appointed joint guardian with JNE. Following a hearing on 24 February 2026, at which I presided, I appointed QQD, JNE and VBJ as joint and several guardians with authority to make decisions concerning GML's medical treatment and the support services provided to her. I appointed QQD as administrator and made the usual consequential orders requiring the filing of a financial statement, plan and accounts. I directed that both the guardianship and administration orders be reassessed no later than 31 March 2029.
4. On 2 March 2026, LGB requested written reasons. These are my reasons for decision.

1. QQD attended the hearing in person. VBJ, JNE and LGB participated by telephone.
2. QQD gave evidence that her mother's health began to deteriorate approximately six to seven years ago and that her father is now her mother's full‑time carer. QQD currently pays GML's bills through access to her bank account but otherwise has limited capacity to manage her financial affairs. GML and VBJ jointly own their home. When VBJ required GML's consent to vary the interest rate on their home loan, GML lacked capacity to provide that consent. GML also holds shares in AMP, but QQD has been unable to obtain information about those holdings.
3. QQD described significant difficulties in arranging care and support for GML, including accessing in‑home services. When the family arranged for a My Aged Care representative to attend the home to assess GML's needs, GML refused to engage. The family wishes to maintain GML at home for as long as possible but requires access to service providers through My Aged Care services to do so.
4. QQD further stated that GML refuses to discuss treatment options when taken to medical appointments. GML's doctor has declined to discuss treatment or medication changes with QQD in the absence of legal authority. QQD wishes to be able to speak privately with the doctor, particularly given the difficulty in persuading GML to attend appointments. Both QQD and JNE transport GML to medical appointments depending on availability, and each therefore requires authority to make medical decisions.
5. VBJ gave evidence regarding his own health issues, the challenges of caring for his wife, and his desire to keep her at home for as long as possible. He said he has been unable to obtain assistance from support services because, as he put it, 'I am nobody in the eyes of the law'. I understood him to mean that he lacked legal authority to make decisions on GML's behalf. He expressed a wish to be appointed guardian together with QQD and JNE. He supported QQD's appointment as administrator and noted that he had appointed her as his own attorney.
6. LGB stated that she travels to Melbourne three to four times each year, staying for approximately three and a half weeks on each visit to assist with her mother's care. She sought appointment as guardian alongside her siblings and father.
7. I accept the evidence of VBJ, QQD, JNE and LGB. Their accounts were consistent with the medical material before the Tribunal. I also had the benefit of QQD's oral evidence, which I found to be measured and motivated by concern for her mother's welfare. There was no dispute that GML requires both a guardian and an administrator.
8. Section 29 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 2019 (Vic) ('the Act') requires that the person who is the subject of an application attend the hearing unless the Tribunal is satisfied that the person does not wish to attend or that attendance is impracticable or unreasonable despite any arrangements VCAT can make.
9. I was satisfied that it was impracticable or unreasonable for GML to attend. The medical evidence establishes that she suffers from moderately severe dementia with challenging behaviours and would be unable to comprehend or meaningfully participate in the proceeding. She lacks insight into her diagnosis, and her attendance would serve no constructive purpose and may cause her unnecessary distress. I note the opinion of Dr George, her treating practitioner of approximately 30 years, that attendance in person would be too stressful, although observation via video link would be possible.

1. Section 8 of the Act sets out the principles that must guide any person, including VCAT, when exercising powers, functions or duties under the Act. In summary:
   1. a person with a disability is to be provided with practicable and appropriate support to make and participate in decisions, express their will and preferences, and develop their decision‑making capacity;
   2. the person's will and preferences should, so far as practicable, direct decisions made for them; and
   3. powers, functions and duties are to be exercised in the manner that is least restrictive of the person's ability to decide and act, consistent with the circumstances.
2. Section 9 sets out additional principles that apply to a person making a decision for a represented person. These principles guide guardians, administrators, supportive decision‑makers and the Tribunal when advising them.
3. I have addressed these principles below.

1. Section 30(2)(a) of the Act provides that VCAT may appoint a guardian or administrator only if satisfied that, because of the person's disability, the person does not have decision‑making capacity in relation to the relevant personal or financial matters.
2. The Tribunal received medical reports from Associate Professor Michael Woodward dated 27 July 2023 and 4 February 2025, and a report from Dr George dated 26 June 2025.
3. In his 2023 report, Associate Professor Woodward stated that GML was in the moderately severe stages of Alzheimer's disease and exhibited significant denial and angry behaviour. He noted that Alzheimer's disease was first suspected in 2013 and that GML's cognitive impairment had progressively worsened. She was fully dependent in domestic and community activities of daily living and refused to accept help or acknowledge her diagnosis. He warned that an acute medical crisis was likely if support services could not be implemented.
4. In his 2025 report, Associate Professor Woodward recorded that GML attended the medical assessment 'very reluctantly'. Her dementia had progressed and she exhibited significant responsive behaviours, including verbal aggression, resistance, delusional beliefs involving lifelike dolls, and nocturnal wandering that disrupted her husband's sleep. She required assistance with all domestic and community tasks and prompting for personal hygiene. He noted that VBJ was 'worn out' and that My Aged Care had been unable to proceed with assessment due to GML's refusal to engage.
5. He expressed the view that GML and her family 'desperately need more support' and that residential care would ultimately be required if she continued to refuse services.
6. Dr George stated that GML lacks capacity in relation to both personal and financial matters. She described GML as uncooperative, angry, lacking insight, often confused, and prone to paranoia. She considered that attending a hearing in person would be too stressful for her.
7. Having regard to the medical evidence, I am satisfied that GML lacks decision‑making capacity in relation to her financial and legal affairs and her personal matters, including decisions concerning medical treatment and support services. No party disputed this conclusion.

1. Section 8 requires the Tribunal to consider GML's will and preferences, so far as practicable, when appointing a guardian or administrator.
2. GML's will and preferences are also relevant to whether an order is necessary (section 31) and whether a proposed appointee is suitable (section 32).
3. The medical evidence establishes that GML lacks insight into her diagnosis, does not accept that she has dementia, and does not acknowledge any need for support services. She is therefore unable to meaningfully engage with, or comprehend, the reasons why guardianship or administration orders may be required. On the basis of the evidence given by her family members and the contents of the medical reports, it is likely she would oppose such orders. I take her likely will and preferences into account, but on this occasion, they are outweighed by serious considerations relating to her medical care and need for support. I also consider it is likely that GML would prefer a family member to be appointed to decision-making roles as opposed to an independent agency, such as the Public Advocate or State Trustees.

IS A SUPPORTIVE GUARDIANSHIP ORDER APPROPRIATE?

1. A supportive guardianship or supportive administration order is a less restrictive alternative to guardianship or administration.
2. However, under section 87(2) of the Act, such an order may only be made if the person consents and has decision‑making capacity when provided with appropriate support.
3. GML lacks decision‑making capacity notwithstanding the provision of support. A supportive order is therefore not available as a less restrictive alternative.

1. Section 30(2)(b) of the Act requires the Tribunal to be satisfied that the person needs a guardian or administrator.
2. Section 31 requires consideration of the person's will and preferences, whether decisions could be made informally, the wishes of relatives and carers, and the desirability of preserving important relationships.
3. GML requires a guardian to make decisions concerning her support at home. VBJ can no longer provide the level of care she requires, and GML refuses to engage with support services. The medical evidence highlights her high care needs and the risks of continuing without intervention. I am satisfied that GML needs a guardian to ensure that she receives the external care and support that she requires and is not deprived of that care and support because of objections based on her lack of insight.
4. For the following reasons, I am satisfied that GML also requires a guardian to make medical treatment decisions. VBJ meets the criteria for medical treatment decision‑makers under the Medical Treatment Planning and Decisions Act 2016 (Vic) ('MTPD Act'), and in his absence his children would also qualify.
5. However, only one person at a time is recognised as a medical treatment decision‑maker under the MTPD Act, but all three family members cooperate at various times to facilitate attendance at medical appointments, to explain symptoms, listen to medical advice and advocate in a medical setting. VBJ wishes to retain authority but seeks the appointment of QQD and JNE given their active involvement in GML's care. His wishes as primary carer are relevant under section 31(c) the Act. Given his own health issues and the strain of caring for GML, the inclusion of QQD and JNE is appropriate. Appointment of all three family members as guardians with medical treatment powers provides clear, documented authority that is readily recognised by medical practitioners and hospitals.
6. Noting the issues that QQD and VBJ have faced in altering interest rates and accessing AMP shares set out in paragraph 6 above, GML also requires an administrator. She lacks capacity to make an enduring power of attorney and is unable to manage her financial affairs. This was not in dispute.

1. Section 30(2)(c) provides that VCAT may appoint a guardian and administrator only if satisfied that the order will promote the person's personal and social wellbeing. I am so satisfied. A guardian and administrator will be able to ensure that appropriate support services are implemented and that necessary medical decisions are made and her financial situation is appropriately managed.

1. LGB seeks appointment as a guardian alongside her father and siblings. Under section 32 of the Act, VCAT may appoint any suitable person, taking into account factors such as availability and the ability to meet and communicate with the represented person. Due to her interstate residence, LGB is only able to visit GML a limited number of times each year and therefore lacks the same capacity for regular contact as the other family members. To appoint LGB as another guardian alongside them is likely in my view to create unnecessary complexity and potential confusion through multiple decision-makers.
2. I am satisfied that appointment of VBJ, QQD and JNE as joint and several guardians will give flexibility and support the practical arrangements for medical care and provision of services for GML. I am not satisfied that the additional appointment of LGB would enhance GML's personal and social wellbeing. QQD's appointment as GML's sole administrator had the support of the other family members.

1. The order specifies the personal matters in respect of which the guardian may make decisions.
2. In exercising those powers, the guardian must comply with the principles in sections 8 and 9 of the Act.

1. The guardianship and administration order will be reassessed by 31 March 2029. GML, or any other person, may apply for an earlier reassessment if circumstances require. I considered that the medical treatment power of the guardians is one that will need to continue for the full three-year period, given the unusually complex issues that family members have faced in seeking medical advice and attention.