1. The Public Advocate, Office of the Public Advocate, 1/204 Lygon Street, Carlton VIC 3053, is appointed guardian for VNR.
2. The guardian has power to make decisions about these personal matters:
   • - where VNR lives; and
   • - the support services that are provided to VNR (e.g. who provide services, the timing and nature of services, funding arrangements for services).
3. The guardian must comply with the Guardianship and Administration Act 2019 (Vic), which outlines their powers and duties.
4. This order applies until VCAT makes another order.
5. Anyone can apply to VCAT to reassess this order at any time.
6. The guardianship order is unlikely to be needed in a year. The guardianship order will end without further hearing or order on 31 March 2026. Anyone who wants the guardianship order to continue after this date can ask for a hearing to reassess the order. The request must be in writing and submitted to VCAT before 5.00pm, 31 March 2026.
7. If the Public Advocate or VNR changes contact details (email, phone address), the Public Advocate must immediately inform VCAT in writing.
8. The application for appointment of administrator is dismissed.

R. Blythe, Victoria Legal Aid solicitor, representing VNR

R. Edokpolo & V. Nguyen, home care package providers

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 written reasons for decision, I refer to the person who is the subject of the application as VNR. 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. On 28 November 2024, the home care package manager for VNR applied for a guardian and administrator to be appointed for VNR because they were concerned about VNR having recently self discharged herself from residential respite care, which she had been transferred to from hospital after a fall at home.
3. There was a hearing on 16 January 2025 where I was the presiding member. VNR was represented by Victoria Legal Aid at the hearing. I made orders at the end of the hearing and gave oral reasons for my decision.
4. On 4 February 2025, Victoria Legal Aid requested written reasons. While that request was out of time,[1] in the circumstances I have decided to provide written reasons for the reasons I gave at the hearing as set out below.
5. I appointed the Public Advocate as guardian for VNR with power to make decisions for VNR about the following matters: where VNR lives and the support services that are provided to her.
6. I dismissed the application for an appointment of an administrator.

1. At the hearing, I heard evidence from the following people:
   1. VNR;
   2. VNR's daughter (who attended by telephone);
   3. the Victoria Legal Aid solicitor representing VNR at the hearing; and
   4. the case manager and a senior case manager from VNR's home care package provider.

1. A person (including VCAT) exercising powers functions and duties under the Act must have regard to the principles set out in s 8 the Guardianship and Administration Act 2019 (Vic) (the Act).[2] In summary, they are:
   1. a person with a disability should be given practicable and appropriate support to make and participate in decisions, express their will and preferences and develop their decision-making capacity;
   2. the will and preferences of a person with a disability should direct decisions made for the person, as far as practicable; and
   3. powers, functions and duties must be used in the way which is the least restrictive of the ability of the person with a disability to decide and act as is possible in the circumstances.
2. Section 9 sets out further principles which apply to a person making a decision 'for' a represented person. These apply to a guardian, administrator, supportive guardian or supportive administrator who is making a decision for a represented person. They also apply to VCAT when it is advising an appointed decision-maker about their powers and duties.

1. When appointing a guardian and an administrator, VCAT must apply the principles in s 8, including that VNR's will and preferences should direct the decision 'as far as practicable'.
2. VNR's will and preferences are relevant also when VCAT decides whether a person needs a guardian or administrator (s 31) and whether a proposed guardian or administrator is a suitable person to be appointed (s 32(3)(a)).
3. VNR attended the hearing and I spoke with her_._ I also heard from VNR's legal representative and her daughter about what VNR's wishes are.
4. Based on this evidence, I was satisfied that VNR wants to be able to continue living in her home. She acknowledged that the application for appointment of guardian and administrator had been a bit of a wake-up call for her and that she needed to accept more help around the home, which she could possibly privately fund.

1. Section 30(2)(a) says VCAT may only appoint a guardian or administrator for a person if satisfied that because of the person's disability, the person does not have decision-making capacity in relation to the personal matters which are the subject of the application.
2. I received the following medical reports:
   1. a medical report completed using the VCAT medical report template dated 1 December 2024 in which VNR's doctor, who has been her doctor for over 18 years, diagnosed VNR with vascular dementia and assessed her as lacking decision-making capacity in relation to personal and financial matters and in relation to the appointment of an enduring power of attorney; and
   2. a neuropsychology assessment report dated 10 October 2024, from St Vincent's Hospital providing a detailed assessment that also diagnosed VNR with vascular dementia and, while it was noted a formal assessment of VNR's decision-making capacity about lifestyle matters was outside the scope of the assessment, stated that VNR's 'cognitive impairment is of sufficient severity to have a relevant negative impact upon her ability to reason through and make informed decisions in relation to her care and where she may reside'.
3. Based on the medical reports, I was satisfied that VNR now lacks the capacity to make decisions about whether she can safely continue to live in her home, what services she may need as support (whether she lives at home or elsewhere) and her financial matters.
4. I understand that VNR disagrees with this assessment but I preferred the expert opinions provided in the medical reports, which are clear and relevant to the assessment I was required to make and are not contradicted by any other medical evidence.

IS A SUPPORTIVE GUARDIANSHIP OR SUPPORTIVE ADMINISTRATION ORDER APPROPRIATE?

1. Appointing a supportive guardian or supportive administrator would be less restrictive than appointing a guardian or an administrator. A less restrictive order would be consistent with the principles in s 8.
2. VCAT has power to appoint a supportive guardian or supportive administrator whenever an application is made for appointment of a guardian or administrator, as provided by s 87.
3. However, to appoint a supportive guardian or supportive administrator for a person, the person must consent and must have decision-making capacity when practicable and appropriate support is provided, as set out in s 87(2).
4. In the present case, this less restrictive alternative was not available because there was no potential supportive guardian or supportive administrator available.
5. Accordingly, that less restrictive alternative was not available in this case.

1. Section 30(2)(b) says VCAT may only appoint a guardian or administrator for a person if satisfied that the person needs a guardian or administrator.
2. Section 31 sets out a number of matters VCAT must consider in determining whether a person needs a guardian or administrator.
3. VCAT must consider the person's will and preferences (as far as they can be ascertained) and whether decisions about the relevant personal matters could be more suitably made informally or could reasonably be made by mediation, negotiation or some similar method.
4. VCAT must also consider the wishes of any primary carer, relative or other person with a direct interest in the application and must also consider the desirability of preserving existing relationships important to the person with a disability.

1. In this case, VNR needs a guardian because there are serious questions about whether VNR's current living arrangements allow her to live safely and free from the risk of serious harm.
2. I accepted what was set out in the material in support of the application from VNR's home care package provider, and what I was told by the staff from the home care package provider at the hearing, about this. They stated they were seriously concerned about VNR's capacity to make decisions that would keep her safe and well at home, including decisions about what services she could receive under her home care package and about accepting the nursing visits she needs for her regular Insulin injections. They were also concerned about whether VNR could continue to safely use her mobility scooter.
3. I was satisfied there have been difficulties in arranging services VNR is entitled to receive in the home and her accepting those services, and her accepting advice about whether she can continue to use her mobility scooter, the provision of which I considered to be a service provided to her. There clearly needed to be a change in approach by VNR about what services she is willing and able to accept to keep her safe.
4. I considered VNR's will and preferences - that is that she should be allowed to return to living at home and make her own assessments of what services she needs to be able to live there and travel about safely. Her lawyer submitted at the hearing that VNR should be given an opportunity to show that she can change her approach before VCAT decided whether a guardian is needed.
5. In the circumstances, however, I was unable to give effect to VNR's wishes because I was satisfied, based on the medical reports referred to above, that, unfortunately, VNR is currently unable to make the assessments and decisions about what services she receives, where she lives and whether she can continue to live at home safely, because of the effects of her disability, being vascular dementia.
6. I considered possible informal means of making these decisions for VNR but was satisfied that, in this case, less formal decision-making is not practicable. I was satisfied VNR needed a formal decision maker to independently communicate and consult with service providers about any assessments made about the risk of harm to VNR if she continues to live at home without the services required to allow her to do that safely, or continues to use her mobility scooter in ways that are unsafe.
7. I also noted that at the hearing VNR's daughter said she agreed with the need for a guardian to be appointed. I was also satisfied that the appointment of a guardian will not interfere with VNR's relationship with her daughter or any other relationship that is important to VNR.
8. Taking all of the above into account, I was satisfied that a guardian needs to be appointed to monitor the way services are being arranged and provided for VNR while living at home so that, if VNR is unable to change her approach or if her change in approach still means she is not able to live at home safely, any decisions that need to be made about where VNR can live safely can be promptly made.

1. I was satisfied that VNR does not need an administrator because there was very little information to suggest there had been any poor financial decision-making by VNR. Her rent and utilities appear to have been paid regularly.
2. Accordingly, while I accepted the medical evidence that VNR does not have decision-making capacity in a legal sense in relation to financial matters, I was satisfied that:
   1. VNR has been managing to make the necessary decisions to keep herself financially stable without the need for an independent decision-maker; and
   2. given VNR's relatively straightforward financial circumstances, the appointment of an administrator is not necessary because the necessary decisions can be made informally, as they currently have been.

1. Section 30(2)(c) says VCAT may only appoint a guardian for a person if satisfied that the guardianship order will promote the person's personal and social wellbeing.
2. I was satisfied in this case that the order will do so because, as I have set out above, a guardian will be able to monitor the way services are being arranged and provided for VNR while living at home and, if VNR is not able to live at home safely, make any decisions that need to be made about where VNR can live safely.

1. In this case, no relatives or friends of VNR were available to be appointed as guardian.
2. I was satisfied (as required by s 33) that no person other than the Public Advocate fulfils the requirements of s 32 for appointment as guardian for VNR.

1. The order says that the guardian can make decisions about where VNR lives and what services are provided to her.
2. The Act gives guidance for the guardian about how to exercise their decision-making power. The principles in ss 8 & 9 apply to those decisions.
3. Section 9 sets out the principles applying when a decision is made for a represented person. It says the guardian 'should give all practicable and appropriate effect to the represented person's will and preferences'.
4. It also says that VNR's will and preferences 'should only be overridden if it is necessary to do so to prevent serious harm' to her.
5. Section 41 sets out further requirements of the guardian.
6. Some of the requirements most relevant in this case are that the guardian must:
   1. act as an advocate for VNR about what services she may receive;
   2. encourage and assist her to develop decision-making capacity about personal affairs, in particular whether she is able to remain living at home; and
   3. act in such a way as to protect her from neglect if it turns out she can no longer safely live at home.

1. This order will be reassessed in a year if any person asks for a hearing. Otherwise it will lapse on 31 March 2026 without any hearing. That is because it is likely that by then all the necessary decisions will have been made for VNR.
2. VNR or anyone else can apply for the reassessment to be before 31 March 2026 if that is necessary.

[1] Under s 117 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic), a party requesting a written version of oral reasons must make that request within 14 days of being given the oral reasons. Accordingly, Victoria Legal Aid's request was made five days out of time.

[2] References to sections of an Act in these reasons are to sections of the Act, unless otherwise stated.