Guardianship and Administration Act 1995, ss 8, 9, 17, 20.

Mental Health Act 2013, s 48.

The decision has been anonymised for the purpose of publication.

1. JNO is a 22-year-old man who is subject to a Treatment Order pursuant to s 48(8) of the Mental Health Act 2013, which expires on 5 November 2025 (the TO). His medical conditions are schizophrenia, Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and mild to moderate intellectual impairment.
2. On 14 January 2025, a representative of Community Forensic Mental Health Service (CFMHS) filed an application seeking the appointment of the Public Guardian as guardian for JNO.
3. On 29 January 2025, the Tribunal adjourned the hearing of the application to a date not before 1 March 2025, and made orders requiring the Public Guardian to investigate and report to the Tribunal pursuant to s 17(2) of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1995 (the Act) with respect to:

(a) What support services are needed and available to JNO pursuant to NDIS funding and how they are provided;

(b) How communication occurs between JNO's Plan Nominee and CFMHS and support services funded by NDIS;

(c) Whether a guardian is required for NDIS decision making and plan development for JNO; and

(d) Any other matters the Public Guardian considers relevant.

1. A Senior Guardian from the Office of the Public Guardian provided an investigation report on 17 March 2025 (the OPG Report).
2. The Tribunal also made directions on 29 January 2025:

(i) requiring JNO's mother, NCO, to file a joinder application if she wished to be joined as a party, and file a Part C Consent form if she wished to be considered for appointment as guardian within 14 days; and

(ii) requiring any party seeking to rely on further documents to file them within 14 days.

1. The matter was heard by the Tribunal on 28 March 2025 and the application was dismissed.
2. The applicant has sought these written reasons.

1. Attending in person at the hearing room in Launceston were:
   • JNO - the proposed represented person
   • NCO - JNO's mother
   • Ms R Olsson - Legal representative for JNO
   • Mr D Vittori - Advocate for JNO
   • KD - JNO's NDIS Support Coordinator
   • DB - Support worker
   • SO - JNO's grandmother
   • MPO - JNO's brother
   • MJO - JNO's sister
   • IB - JNO's sister
2. Those attending the hearing by video link were:
   • Ms B Riley - Clinical Lead, CFMHS - Applicant
   • Ms S Amerekanos - CFMHS Case Manager
   • Ms D Hammond - Senior Guardian, OPG

1. The Presiding member of the Tribunal listed the documents available to it at the start of the hearing.

1. When the Tribunal assesses an application for the appointment of a guardian for a person in respect of one or more personal matters, it needs to be satisfied, in accordance with s 20 of the Act, that the proposed represented person:
   • has impaired decision-making ability in respect of decisions relating to financial matters;
   • is in need of a guardian; and
   • the Tribunal is satisfied that the order (or orders) will promote the person's personal and social well-being.
2. When determining whether a person is in need of an administrator, the Tribunal must consider the following:
   • the wishes and preferences of the person, as far as they can be ascertained;
   • whether the needs of the person could be met by other means less restrictive of that person's freedom of decision and action; and
   • the wishes and preferences of any close family members, carers and other significant persons in the life of the person who are present at the hearing and are entitled to be heard at that hearing.
3. When considering an application for guardianship, the Tribunal is to observe the principles set out in s 8 of the Act. They include:
   • a person's decision-making ability is to be respected and promoted;
   • a person who requires support in decision making is to be provided with access to the support necessary to enable the person, as far as is practicable in the circumstances -

• to make and participate in decisions affecting the person; and
• to express the person's will and preferences; and
• to develop the person's decision-making ability;
  • the views, wishes and preferences of a person with impaired decision-making ability in respect of decisions are to be respected and used to inform those decisions;
  • the role of close family members, carers and other significant persons in the life of a person with impaired decision-making ability in respect of decisions is to be recognised;
  • the importance of preserving the cultural and linguistic environment of the person is to be recognised;
  • the personal and social well-being of a person with impaired decision-making ability in respect of decisions is to be promoted; and
  • the means which is the least restrictive of a person's freedom of decision and action as possible in the circumstances is to be adopted.

1. The Tribunal had a Health Practitioner Report - Guardianship (the HPR) completed by a specialist psychiatrist, Dr Elizabeth Jackson on 23 January 2025.
2. Dr Jackson says that JNO's medical conditions are schizophrenia, ASD, ADHD and mild to moderate intellectual impairment.
3. Doctor Jackson says that JNO does not have decision-making ability about personal matters because he cannot:
   • understand information relevant to the decision;
   • retain information relevant to the decision for a sufficient time to make and consistently communicate the decision; or
   • use or weigh information relevant to the decision.
4. Attendees at the hearing were asked if there was any challenge to the HPR provided by Dr Jackson, and there was no challenge.

1. In the application filed on 14 January 2025, Ms Riley said in relation to why she believes JNO needs a guardian:

JNO needs an independent guardian for NDIS decisions. He shows limited capacity to make informed decisions about his NDIS care which leaves him vulnerable to poor decisions being made by his current Plan Nominee (his mother, NCO) who's decisions do not always appear to be informed by JNO's best interests. This has raised concerns regarding inconsistency in JNO's care and limited opportunity to implement meaningful interventions.

2. When Ms Riley was asked about why she had made the application, she submitted that a guardian is needed to make decisions about services, including the NDIS, but not for anything else at this stage.
3. Ms Olsson informed the Tribunal that if a guardian is needed to make decisions for NDIS matters, JNO would prefer the guardian be his mother. However, when she was questioned about that, Ms Olsson agreed that if decisions need to be made only in relation to NDIS matters, JNO's Plan Nominee could make those decisions. She confirmed that JNO's mother is currently his NDIS Plan Nominee.
4. JNO's advocate, Mr Vittori, informed the Tribunal that JNO is happy with his mother looking after his affairs in relation to the NDIS. He stated that JNO's mother had found him nice accommodation. He also told the Tribunal that, if a guardian has to be appointed, JNO would prefer that it be his mother, because he does not want someone he does not know making decisions for him.
5. JNO's mother told the Tribunal she believed there is a need for a guardian. There was discussion between the Presiding Member and JNO's mother in relation to the treatment order, and in relation to her role as "person responsible" under the provisions of the Act.
6. JNO's NDIS Support Coordinator, KD, told the Tribunal that she had had several meetings with a Senior Planner in the Complex Support Needs Branch of the NDIS (the Senior Planner). In a meeting in March 2025, they had "gone over [JNO's] plan with a fine tooth comb". She said that the Senior Planner would be her "go to person" in relation to JNO's NDIS plan and that she had full faith in the Senior Planner overseeing the plan.
7. KD also said that she had full confidence that she should be able to do what the Senior Planner instructs and be able to "support [NCO] and the family at the same time".
8. When questioned, Ms Riley and Ms Amerekanos informed the Tribunal that they had not been involved in discussions with the Senior Planner.
9. In the Investigation Report received by the Tribunal on 17 March 2025, Ms Hammond had said:

An independent third party, such as the Public Guardian, may be able to assist in decision making in relation to JNO's NDIS supports for a period of time. Section 8 and 9 principles of the Act inform how the role of guardian is undertaken including "giving effect, as far as practicable, to the views, wishes and preferences of a person" and considering of "the role of close family members, carers and other significant persons in the life of a person with impaired decision making in respect to decisions." If appointed by the Tribunal, the Public Guardian would work with JNO and his family in relation to decisions regarding his NDIS supports.

10. Ms Hammond reiterated during the hearing that, if appointed as guardian by the Tribunal, the Public Guardian would work with JNO and his family in relation to any decisions in relation to NDIS matters. She thought that some of the changes in relation to JNO's NDIS supports had been legitimately needed, and she commented that some of the concerns raised may not be solved by appointing the Public Guardian. She commented further that the Public Guardian "cannot just wave a magic wand", but said what can assist is a consistent NDIS Support Coordinator and the right support being funded.
11. NCO made it clear that if a guardian is to be appointed, it should be herself. She said that she believes JNO now has a good support coordinator and it was clear that she did not believe that had existed in the past. She told the Tribunal that JNO had had Support Coordinators in the past who had not supported him. She added: "I know that because I work in the industry".
12. NCO was asked by the Tribunal whether she thought there could be a perception that she could have a conflict of interest being the Plan Nominee while working for, and being paid by, the NDIS. After she and KD had some discussions, they both said they did not see any conflict of interest.
13. Ms Riley informed the Tribunal that the CFMHS experience was that "things go along okay" while the relationship between NCO and Support Coordinators is stable, but when the support coordinators face challenges or have ideas about services that NCO does not agree with, the Support Coordinator leaves or is dismissed. She said CFMHS had also experienced inconsistency in relation to support coordination. She added that "the Support Coordinator is key in pulling all this together".
14. IB, JNO's sister, told the Tribunal that NCO had not had any good NDIS support until now, and at that point in the hearing, the Tribunal adjourned to consider its decision.

1. As there was no challenge to the medical evidence before it, the Tribunal had little difficulty concluding that JNO is a person who has impaired decision-making ability in relation to personal matters.
2. It was generally agreed by the participants in the hearing that the only decisions that currently need to be made for JNO by a substitute decision maker are those that relate to provision of services, and in particular, services funded by the NDIS.
3. JNO made his wishes clear to the Tribunal that he wants his mother to be the person who makes decisions for him about the NDIS.
4. The Tribunal considered whether decision making in relation to the NDIS could be addressed by a means less restrictive than the appointment of a guardian, such as the current Plan Nominee making those decisions.
5. Noting that JNO's mother is his NDIS Plan Nominee and that JNO has a new NDIS Support Coordinator who has been involved for some months, the Tribunal was of the view that there is no current need for the appointment of a guardian.
6. The Tribunal also noted that JNO has the support of several other close family members who were present at the hearing who were opposed to the appointment of the Public Guardian.
7. The Tribunal concluded that the application for guardianship should be dismissed.