GUARDIANSHIP BOARD DECISIONS
YEAR 2021
| Date of Decisions | Case Summary | |
| 1. | Review (18/5/2021) |
Subject was a woman aged 67 with cognitive impairment and was staying in an old age home. After Subject was placed under guardianship for a year, Subject’s husband, together with Subject, applied for review alleging that she was not mentally incapacitated and requested her discharge from the old age home. Board members visited Subject at the old age home before the hearing. Husband did not propose any care plan or attend the hearing. Further, having considered that the Subject was mentally incapacitated but not of a severe type, the Board decided to renew the guardianship order as it was still necessary to protect Subject but only for one year so that the case could be reviewed again by then. (Uploaded on 25/5/2023) |
| 2. | Application (23/7/2021) |
Subject was a woman aged 74 with mixed-type dementia. Subject was first diagnosed with dementia in 2014, and by 2015 she exhibited clear symptoms of failing to handle her finances and other matters and her children moved in to live with her. Her treating doctor recommended a guardianship application but the family did not proceed. One of the daughters took her to the bank to open a joint account with herself and transferred the Subject’s money to the joint account allegedly to protect her money. Claiming it was idle money, the daughter used the money to make an insurance investment but did not put Subject as the insured or the beneficiary, nor was there a reasonable explanation. The other daughter found out and asked for the money to be returned to Subject. After years of refusal, the guardianship application was eventually made by the other daughter. Younger brother thought money was the cause of the family dispute. In granting the guardianship order, the Board considered that a neutral party was preferable when family members were in dispute and could not reach consensus on Subject’s care, so Director of Social Welfare was appointed as guardian to facilitate the recovery of Subject’s money and the children’s conciliation. (Uploaded on 25/5/2023) |
| 3. | Review (7/12/2021) |
Subject was a woman aged 84 with dementia. The first guardianship order was made in 2020. In this review hearing, guardianship order was renewed for 3 years appointing Director of Social Welfare to continue as guardian. Subject was a singleton who lived in a care home where she previously alleged that its staff had taken her money. Subject was later transferred to a new care home where she adapted well. The delegated guardian was attentive and developed a bond with Subject, who praised him before the Board. Taking into account her specific needs, guardianship was still in her best interests not only to mobilize her account but for the guardian to provide her with the emotional support required. (Uploaded on 25/5/2023) |
| 4. | Review (7/12/2021) |
Subject was a man aged 39 who had a cerebral vascular accident. Father appointed as guardian and the guardianship was being reviewed for the third time. Subject made significant progress, recovering in terms of his communication with others, his swallowing abilities and his hands’ dexterity. Subject’s own determination, positive personality and the strong support of family members made his remarkable recovery possible. Further rehabilitation was being arranged. As guardianship was still required to mobilize his resources, guardianship order was renewed for another 3 years at the request of the guardian. (Uploaded on 25/5/2023) |
| 5. | Application (15/12/2021) |
Subject was a man aged 69 with schizophrenia. Subject refused medical treatment for years while her sister, the applicant, looked after him at home. His condition deteriorated and now required institutional care. Sister initially proposed their elder brother who was more knowledgeable than her to be the private guardian. On finding out that the Subject had several inactive accounts with banks rendering the funds inaccessible, and there was difficulty dealing with the banks, the elder brother felt that he did not have sufficient energy to deal with those issues and requested the help of the Director of Social Welfare. The public guardian was appointed for one year after considering the special circumstances (including their advanced age), to enable the siblings to focus on caring for Subject while the guardian assisted to overcome the more complex banking arrangements. (Uploaded on 25/5/2023) |
