HH [2026] WASAT 8 (9 February 2026)

Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), s 3, s 4, s 4(3), s 4(4), s 4(5), s 4(6), s 4(7), s 40, s 43(1)(b), s 43(1)(c), s 44, s 44(5), s 51, s 64(1)(a), s 64(1)(b), s 68

(These reasons were delivered orally on 6 February 2026. They have been anonymised and citations have been added for the purpose of publication as written reasons for the interested party using an interpreter.)

1. These are my reasons for decision in matter GAA 5027 of 2025 which is an application by HH for administration and guardianship orders (for himself) under the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) (GA Act).
2. I conducted hearings on 5 November 2025 and 29 January 2026 and reserved my decision due to insufficient time to deliver adequate reasons on the final hearing day.
3. I have decided to dismiss the application for administration and to appoint the Public Advocate as limited guardian.
4. These are my reasons for those decisions.

1. HH is a 43-year-old man with treatment resistant schizophrenia and an intellectual disability who lives with his father M in Department of Communities accommodation. He is a participant with the NDIS and receives some formal services, but his father provides the only informal support.
2. HH made his own application seeking administration and guardianship orders, stating that he needs help managing his money and making personal decisions. He attempted to withdraw the application, but leave was refused and the hearing proceeded on 5 November 2025. Due to important new evidence introduced at that hearing the proceedings were adjourned to a further hearing on 29 January 2026.

1. I have considered all lodged written evidence including the reports from:
   • Dr J a senior medical practitioner at Community Mental Health Team whose report confirmed HH's lack of capacity to make financial and personal decisions due to his treatment resistant schizophrenia and mild intellectual disability. HH has had involvement with mental health services in WA since 2009 and 26 hospital admissions, most recently last year for mental health deterioration in the context of his poor compliance with medication. The report referred to the father having chronic coercive and controlling ways;
   • Mr J care coordinator of Community Mental Health Team. His report aligns closely with Dr J's report. HH has been known to this particular mental health service since September 2025.
   • Mr B team leader of a support service confirming that HH lacks capacity and his health and safety is at risk at home.
   • Ms K support coordinator of a service provider confirming the father supports HH but the relationship is under strain, the father is aging and unable to maintain the level of support required and there is ongoing stress and tension within the family.
   • Mr C, behaviour support practitioner of a community care service, raising significant concerns about the father's conflict with HH's multidisciplinary team including opposing the use of prescription medication and expressing strong opposition to HH's occupational therapy (OT) and Positive Behavioural Specialist (PBS) interventions. The report confirms HH lacks capacity and his health and safety are at significant risk primarily due to the father's strong opposition to medical interventions. His accommodation is also unsafe and inadequate for HH's needs.
   • Mr T, OT of a second community care service, confirming HH's lack of capacity in all domains, dependence on his father and recent hospital admission due to poor medication adherence as a result of the father's opposition to certain antipsychotic medications which has contributed to a deterioration in HH's mental state. The father also opposes services and mental health care support for HH which significantly affects HH's access to essential services. Risks due to self-neglect and food insecurity are outlined.
   • Mr T's Functional Capacity Assessment is consistent with the above report and adds that M is obstructive to services from NDIS such as therapy and support worker assistance which has hindered HH's access to services. When his father could not do the grocery shopping HH had no access to food other than pita bread. The father's aggression to service providers is noted as is HH's need for high level formal supports. The father is also stated to be unreachable by phone; and
   • The Public Advocate Investigation Report recommending the application be dismissed as HH is effectively informally supported by his father.
2. I have also heard the oral submissions at both hearings from:
   • The applicant, HH, and his lawyer from the Mental Health Law Centre - opposing an administration order but seeking a guardianship order as HH needs help with personal decisions and specifically wants more suitable accommodation and better support services. HH testified that he opposes his father as guardian and seeks an independent guardian appointed from the Office of the Public Advocate.
   • The father, M, assisted by an interpreter - making very long-winded repetitive allegations against Dr J at both hearings, some of which predated the engagement of HH with Dr J and the Mental Health Service by a decade. The father opposes orders as HH can make his own decisions.

The father testified that Dr J is a liar. He insisted (incorrectly) that she had threatened to have him prosecuted by the police in her evidence at the first hearing. The father testified that he is now taking HH to a private psychiatrist who he declined to identify (at first saying he had forgotten their name and then refusing to name them for fear of retribution by Dr J). The father testified that this private practitioner had taken HH off his psychiatric medication and started him on new medication. The father did not provide dates of past or future appointments as requested and did not lodge a medical report from the private practitioner.

The father rejects all evidence to the effect that he obstructs his son's mental health treatment and opposes antipsychotic medication. M denies that conflict with his son prevents him from staying at the house. He denies that HH sometimes only has pita bread to eat.

At the end of the first hearing Dr J asked HH directly if she could call him, to which HH readily agreed. His father then stated that Dr J is not to call him.

• Dr J testified in line with her report and detailed hostile interactions with the father at the clinic to HH's detriment, including M's opposition to necessary medication. She strongly supported the appointment of an independent administrator and guardian to make decisions in HH's best interests including pursuing supported independent living accommodation. She testified that she did not want to damage the relationship between father and son.

Dr J testified that since the first hearing HH had avoided the service and cancelled his appointment. She believes his father is preventing HH from receiving treatment and support and is very concerned for his welfare.

• Mr J testified consistently with his report and with Dr J about the father's hostility to services, threats to staff, agitation towards both staff and HH, M's rejection of his son's medication and his negative influence over HH's mental health treatment. He testified the father is not acting in HH's best interest.
• Ms K testified in terms of her report and stated that she agreed with the evidence of the other professionals; and
• The Investigator Advocate from the Office of the Public Advocate, Mr P, maintained his initial recommendation that the father's informal support is sufficient to meet HH's needs and orders are not necessary with the less restrictive supports in place.

1. In making my decision, I am mindful of the principles set out in s 4 of the GA Act:
   • My primary concern is the best interests of HH;
   • HH is presumed to be capable of looking after his own health and safety; of making reasonable judgments in matters relating to his person; of managing his own affairs and of making reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to his estate until the contrary is proved to the satisfaction of the Tribunal;
   • A guardianship or administration order may not be made where there is an alternative means of meeting HH's needs that is less restrictive of his freedom of decision and action;
   • Where an order is made, it must be in terms that impose the least restrictions on HH's freedom of decision and action; and
   • I must seek to ascertain, as far as possible, the views and wishes of HH.

1. Before appointing an administrator, I must first be satisfied that HH is unable, by reason of a mental disability, to make reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to all or any part of his estate.[1]
2. I must also be satisfied that HH is in need of an administrator.[2]
3. Before appointing a guardian, I must be satisfied that HH is:[3]

(a) incapable of looking after his own health and safety; or

(b) unable to make reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to his person; or

(c) in need of oversight, care or control in the interests of his own health and safety or for the protection of others.

1. In addition, I must be satisfied that HH is in need of a guardian.[4]

1. In this case the evidence regarding HH's condition is unchallenged and there is no dispute that he has schizophrenia and an intellectual impairment with longstanding involvement with mental health services and many past hospitalisations.
2. I am satisfied from the reports of the medical and allied health professionals that HH has a 'mental disability' as defined by s 3 of the GA Act.

1. I have considered the issue of capacity, starting from the presumption that every person has the ability to make reasonable judgments in relation to their finances and person and then considering whether the evidence before me is sufficient to rebut that presumption and positively establish that HH is unable to make such decisions.

1. I am satisfied that HH's psychiatric condition and intellectual impairment causes him difficulties in adhering to his treatment regime. The professional reports are all consistent in their conclusions that HH is unable to make decisions in his own best interests in relation to his treatment, accommodation and services. HH's evidence was often disjointed and confused but he clearly testified that he needs better accommodation and services and wants someone appointed to make these types of decisions for him.
2. I prefer the professionals' evidence over that of the father who denies any problems and insists that HH independently makes decisions in his own best interests. The overwhelming evidence is to the contrary and I am satisfied and I find, that as a consequence of his mental disabilities HH is not able to take care of his own health and safety, or to make reasonable decisions in relation to his person, and is in need of oversight, care or control in the interests of his own health and safety.

1. The professionals consistently assert that HH is unable to manage his finances and has regularly spent all his money impulsively leaving himself without food. HH volunteered that he has bought too many games and headphones in the past but wants to stop now. He agreed that people have tried to exploit and steal from him.
2. The father said HH is fairly independent and denied any financial issues despite the clear evidence of the professionals.
3. I am satisfied that by reason of his mental disabilities HH is unable to make reasonable judgments in relation to his estate and is vulnerable to exploitation. I prefer the consistent and cogent evidence of the professionals to the father.
4. The presumption of capacity is rebutted by the evidence. I am satisfied and I find HH is unable to make reasonable decisions in relation to all of his estate and in relation to his person and is therefore a person for whom I can appoint an administrator and a guardian.
5. The question is whether or not it is necessary to make an administration or guardianship order.

Is there a less restrictive means of meeting HH's needs?

1. There is an abundance of evidence from the Public Advocate investigator, medical and allied health professionals and service providers that HH requires a great deal of support to manage his financial and personal affairs.
2. I have considered whether the father's informal support is a less restrictive means of adequately meeting HH's needs than the appointment of a guardian and administrator.

1. The Public Advocate's Investigator Advocate submitted that HH's rent, utilities and medication are paid using direct debit. His father handles their food allowance and grocery shopping funds and HH has money for transport to work and socialisation and clothing which he sometimes overspends on gaming. The recommendation is that HH has sufficient informal support in place from his father and support workers and the administration application should be dismissed.
2. HH's lawyer agreed that he has informal support from his father and a simple estate and does not need an administrator.
3. M confirmed that he assists HH with money and pays for some of his expenses himself. He thinks HH should have independence with his own finances and denies that he has been exploited by others in the past.
4. HH testified that he can manage his allowance independently and does not need an administrator. He was particularly anxious about any interference with his money. He appeared to accept his father's support although at times he testified that he did not trust him with his money. He receives some wages for part time work in addition to his pension. The father gave some unclear evidence that HH receives $6,000 in interest every 3 months. I accept that HH's estate appears uncomplicated. HH agrees that he has from time to time in the past run out of money and food, but he is generally not in financial distress and there is no evidence of debts.
5. I take into account HH's strong opposition to anyone taking control of his money. I consider an administration order would exacerbate his anxiety and distress. With some reservations, given the compelling evidence of past food insecurity and impulsive spending, I am nevertheless satisfied that the father's informal support and the formal supports now in place provide a less restrictive means of meeting HH's financial needs. I find that HH is not currently in need of an administrator.
6. I will dismiss the application for administration.
7. A new application may be made if there is evidence that these supports are not working effectively to support HH's financial management in the future.

1. I now consider if there is a need for a guardianship order.
2. The professional evidence is very strongly critical of the father's influence in personal matters. I prefer this consistent evidence, from a variety of professionals from different organisations, to the evidence of the father which was rambling, repetitive and unpersuasive. The father appears fixated on his long-term suspicion of various professionals rather than his son's needs.
3. The father's poor relationship with the medical and allied health team and refusal to accept medication and services for HH is clearly to his detriment.
4. I am satisfied that the father does not communicate with the medical and allied health professionals in an appropriate manner, fails to follow their advice and is a barrier to his son receiving proper support for his conditions. HH is susceptible and very influenced by his father's views which are contrary to professional advice and has led to deterioration in HH's mental health and very frequent hospitalisations.
5. I am not satisfied that the informal support of the father is adequate to meet HH's needs and I find it is necessary to appoint a guardian.

1. A guardian must be a person over the age of 18 who is willing to undertake the role, and whom the Tribunal finds will act in the best interests of HH[5] and is otherwise suitable.[6] Their interests must not conflict with those of HH and the Tribunal must take into account:

(a) the desirability of preserving existing relationships within the family of the person in respect of whom the application is made;

(b) the compatibility of the proposed appointee with that person and with the administrator/guardian (if any) of that person's estate;

(c) the wishes of the person in respect of whom the application is made; and

(d) whether the proposed appointee will be able to perform the functions vested in them.

1. The Public Advocate shall not be appointed as guardian unless there is no other person the Tribunal finds suitable who is willing to act.[7]
2. The Investigator's report refers to HH being admitted to hospital up to 28 times in the last couple of years. This does not support the recommendation that the informal support of the father is sufficient to meet HH's needs. The investigator also reported that HH is happy with his father's support in relation to personal decisions and would like that to continue.
3. During the hearing HH demonstrated some insight into his need for more help although his testimony was often unclear and he was anxious and distressed at times. Although he is opposed to an administrator, he readily agreed that he needs a guardian to assist with personal decisions such as accommodation and support services. When asked who he wants as his guardian, he emphatically expressed his preference for an independent guardian over his father.
4. I accept the evidence of Dr J which is consistent with the other health and allied professionals that the father is not consistently acting in HH's best interests in regards to personal matters and that HH's health and safety is at risk as a result.
5. I am satisfied that M is not suitable for appointment as guardian due to his opposition to HH taking his prescribed medication, his oppositional behaviour towards the doctor and staff at the mental health service and his refusal to allow HH to engage with services such as OT and PBS. To this extent I find that M has a conflict of interest with his son.
6. I am also satisfied on the evidence that HH and M are regularly in conflict with each other and their relationship is stressed.
7. HH strongly opposes his father being appointed as his guardian.
8. I am satisfied and I find that M does not fulfil the requirements of a guardian under the GA Act. As there is nobody else willing to take on the role, I find that there is no option to the appointment of the Public Advocate as HH's guardian.

1. I am satisfied that HH's needs will be sufficiently met by a guardianship appointment with authority to make accommodation, medical treatment and services decisions. I also consider a contact function to be necessary. The guardian may need to limit M's attendance with HH at appointments, for example, in view of M's history of conflict with staff at the mental health clinic.

1. I am required to specify a period of time within which a review of the orders must be conducted. The maximum time permitted by the GA Act is 5 years which I consider to be appropriate given HH's diagnosis and the long-standing issues ventilated at the hearings.

(a) incapable of looking after his own health and safety;

(b) unable to make reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to his person;

(c) in need of oversight, care or control in the interests of his own health and safety; and

1. The Public Advocate of David Malcolm Justice Centre, Level 23, 28 Barrack Street, Perth, Western Australia is appointed limited guardian of the represented person with the following functions:

(a) to decide where the represented person is to live, whether permanently or temporarily;

(b) to decide with whom the represented person is to live;

(c) to make treatment decisions for the represented person, subject to Division 3 of Part 5 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA);

(d) to determine the services to which the represented person should have access; and

(e) to determine what contact, if any, the represented person should have with others and the extent of that contact.

1. The Tribunal approves delegation by the Public Advocate of her functions as guardian of the represented person to an officer or employee employed in the Office of the Public Advocate.
2. The guardianship order is to be reviewed before 6 February 2031.

I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.