For the reasons set out above, the review Tribunal has concluded that:
(a) AB is a person for whom a guardian and manager should be appointed;
(b) the powers granted to the guardian and manager in the current order are appropriate;
(c) the PTG should remain as the guardian and manager.
Consequently, the current order should not be varied or revoked.
It is important to note what the conclusion in this case is, and what it is not.
The conclusion has been reached, and must be understood, in the context of the current and preceding circumstances, primarily the nature of the treatment being received by AB. That treatment is being administered under a PTO. The Chief Psychiatrist is responsible for the treatment, care or support of AB.[62] The Mental Health Act gives the Chief Psychiatrist (and hence the treating team) broad but not unlimited powers. The team needs to have sufficient latitude to develop, revise and administer a program that is tailored to meet AB's needs and that is in his best interests. That program can be informed, monitored and commented on by AB's family, but the treating team should not be impeded in delivering treatment, care and support in accordance with their professional opinions, having regard to AB's history and changing condition.
The conclusion in this case does not, and need not, preclude the appointment of a member of AB's family as guardian and/or manager in the future if AB's condition improves significantly, his circumstances change, and the role of the treating team is reduced accordingly in both legal and practical terms. We do not speculate about whether or when that might occur, or whether a member or members of AB's family would necessarily be appointed. Indeed, it might be that eventually there is no need for AB to have a guardian and/or manager. All we are saying is that the fact that AC has not satisfied this review Tribunal that he be appointed as AB's guardian and manager does not preclude him from applying successfully in the future in significantly different circumstances.
The conclusion in this case has been reached at a particular time in specific circumstances. It is appropriate to note that AB's family are loyal, loving and supportive of him. Those qualities have been demonstrated for a long time, and continue to be demonstrated on a daily basis. The conclusion in this case does not detract from that.
Nor does the outcome in this case mean that members of AB's family are precluded from providing care and support for him in various ways (e.g. by visiting him and providing food) or that their views are irrelevant to important decisions made on his behalf. As noted earlier, the current orders provide that:
(a) the PTG as guardian is to "liaise with the protected person's family regarding the protected person's treatment, care and support;" and
(b) the PTG as manager has powers in relation to AB's property which the PTG is to exercise having regard to the views of his family.
AC submitted that:
(a) he (or AB's family) be appointed as guardian and manager for a trial period of six months to a year "to prove that we are true partner to the current and future treating team in pursuit of improving [AB's] quality of life;" and
(b) if there are no challenges to the appointment, the trial period could be extended on a yearly basis.
For the reasons set out above, we have decided not to take that approach. That does not preclude the family applying for a review of the orders in the future if circumstances change significantly or for seeking a different order when the Tribunal reviews the current orders on its own initiative.
We note that, after these reasons for decision were written, but before they were released, AC sent the Tribunal an email advising that AB has been discharged from the AMHU and is now under his parents' care. As stated earlier, these reasons were prepared on the basis of evidence available to the review Tribunal at the hearing. The change of circumstances advised by AC is consistent with the treatment plan noted earlier, but does not affect the decision in this case.
One further matter remains to be decided. On 17 July 2017, the appeal Tribunal made the following order:
The hearing of the appeal in AA 14/2017 is adjourned to a date to be fixed and is subject to any further order of the Tribunal.
Because this review hearing dealt with the substantive issues raised by the appeal, there is no need for any further hearing in relation to the appeal. Accordingly, in accordance with order 1 on 17 July 2017, we make a further order that the appeal in AA 14/2017 is dismissed.
[2]
[1] Because this decision refers to mental health proceedings, the names of the protected person, members of his family, treating doctors and others involved in these proceedings have not been used in these reasons for decision. See ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008 section 39, Mental Health Act 2015section 194
[6] The statement was prepared for the hearing of the appeal against the original decision
[6]
[9] The description of his current position is set out in some detail in the signature block on the many emails that were provided to the Tribunal in relation to these proceedings
[7]
[12] See Document D1 pages 8-9, 13-15, 22-31 and the documents referred to and provided in Document D2
[8]
[15] The doctor was an initial member of AB's first treating team and the family stated that they and AB had a positive relationship with him
[22] He was, however, refused appointment as guardian and manager in the previous proceedings that resulted in the current roles
[13]
[23] The Mental Health Act 2015 makes it clear that the chief psychiatrist is responsible for the treatment, care or support of a person to whom a psychiatric treatment order applies (section 62(1)) and that, in making a mental health order in relation to a person, the Tribunal must not order a particular form of treatment, care or support (section 57)