GUARDIANSHIP BOARD DECISIONS
YEAR 2025
| Date of Decisions | Case Summary | |
| 1. | Review (10/1/2025) |
Subject was a man aged 48 who suffered from traumatic brain injury from a traffic accident. His elder brother acted as the guardian and the mother acted as the main carer visiting the Subject daily. The Subject's recovery had been promising and the family wish to take the Subject back to their home base for long term care when his conditions allow. Pending this arrangement, the Guardianship Order was renewed for 3 years with his elder brother continuing as the guardian. (Uploaded on 9/7/2025) |
| 2. | Review (14/1/2025) |
Subject was a man aged 70 who suffered from vascular dementia. His daughter acted as the guardian. His personal savings was exhausted and he was offered and just admitted to a subvented care home placement. The Subject would continue to draw on his welfare money through his daughter as his appointee to receive them. Since his Guardianship Order was originally applied for to mobilize the Subject's personal savings, it was not renewed upon expiry. (Uploaded on 9/7/2025) |
| 3. | Review (20/1/2025) |
Subject was a woman aged 94 who suffered from Alzheimer's disease. She was a childless widow and her relatives could not be located in the social enquiry. During the guardianship period, a Niece was found to have visited the Subject occasionally but she could not be more involved in the Subject's care plan and welfare or act as the guardian due to her old age. The Subject remained stable residing at a subsidized residential care placement, so the Guardianship Order was renewed for the maximum term of 3 years with the Director of Social Welfare continuing as the guardian. (Uploaded on 9/7/2025) |
| 4. | Application (24/1/2025) |
Subject was a woman aged 26 who suffered from mental handicap. The application was first made in November 2023 and the hearing was adjourned in May 2024 to allow the Board and the social enquiry report writer to consider certain new information submitted by one of the parties only at the hearing. There was serious conflict between two camps of the Subject's relatives over the care of the Subject. One camp was concerned that the Subject will be taken out of Hong Kong permanently, while the other camp suspected the other side insisted to take care of the Subject solely to qualify for a bigger public housing unit. As the conflict cannot be resolved, the Board appointed the Director of Social Welfare as the guardian and encouraged the two camps to reconcile and co-operate on a feasible and stable plan for the Subject with the public guardian acting as a neutral intermediary between them. (Uploaded on 9/7/2025) |
| 5. | Application (13/2/2025) |
Subject was a woman aged 59 who suffered from a cerebral vascular accident. She was single and used to live with her father and elder brother but has been hospitalized since she suffered from that accident in last August. The application was made to mobilize the Subject's savings as it is expected that the Subject needed to receive residential care service in light of her intensive care needs. The applicant was another elder brother of the Subject and had taken steps to terminate his business across the border to return to Hong Kong to take care of the Subject. The applicant was appointed as the guardian for one year to manage the ongoing welfare and finance needs of the Subject. The Subject would be eligible to apply for long term care upon her reaching 60 if there is a proven need. (Uploaded on 9/7/2025) |
| 6. | Application (24/2/2025) |
Subject was a man aged 66 who suffered from a cerebral vascular accident. The Subject was not based in Hong Kong and the guardianship application was made by the younger brother of the Subject to mobilize his bank accounts in Hong Kong. The Subject and his family had no plan to return to Hong Kong and he only came back to Hong Kong briefly to handle certain matters. As it was considered impossible to supervise the guardianship when the Subject is permanently based overseas, the application was dismissed. The Board considered that the applicant may seek independent legal advice on a Part II application to the High Court. (Uploaded on 9/7/2025) |
| 7. | Application (24/2/2025) |
Subject was a woman aged 90 who suffered from Alzheimer's disease. An emergency guardianship application was made by her daughter to give consent for the Subject to undergo a surgery to treat skin cancer. After the application was made, the Subject was re-assessed by the psychiatrist to be capable of making her own decisions about the medical treatment. The Subject attended the hearing in person with her two daughters and they told the Board that the Subject has agreed to proceed with the surgery. The Board accepted the withdrawal of the guardianship application. (Uploaded on 9/7/2025) |
| 8. | Application (25/3/2025) |
Subject was a man aged 61 who suffered from a cerebral vascular accident. He was found unconscious at home when he missed a family gathering and could not be reached. The Subject was assessed to be a mentally incapacitated person with poor prognosis and an application for guardianship was made by his elder brother within a month after the incident. Fortunately, the Subject's mental and physical conditions continued to improve and the applicant then filed a notice of withdrawal. An updated medical report confirmed the Subject's conditions have improved but it was not certain whether the Subject was still a mentally incapacitated person. Without ruling on his capacity, the Board accepted the withdrawal of the guardianship application only on the basis that the Subject was well cared of and there was no guardianship need. (Uploaded on 31/3/2026) |
| 9. | Review (9/5/2025) |
Subject was a man aged 55 who suffered from brain injury and polytrauma. He was single and his half-brother was the applicant in 2018. His half-brother was appointed as his private guardian initially but the public guardian was appointed upon review due to the guardian's deteriorating health. The Subject has been residing at infirmary placement at Hospital Authority's hospital since February 2022. While the Subject still have reasonable savings, the Board recommended the public guardian to seek legal opinion on taking out a Part II application which could grant wider powers including managing and/or selling the Subject's landed property, in view of his young age and continuous caring needs. The Guardianship Order was renewed for the maximum term of 3 years with the Director of Social Welfare continuing as the guardian. (Uploaded on 31/3/2026) |
| 10. | Application (4/6/2025) |
Subject was a man aged 61 who suffered from a cerebral vascular accident. The applicant was his elder brother and made the application with the intention to mobilize the Subject's own savings to cover his daily expenses. The Subject was single but his siblings were very caring to him. After the incident, his elder sister quitted her job and became a full-time carer of the Subject. The Subject was first discharged to residential care service but he did not adjust well and moved back home to live with his younger brother. Subsequently, it transpired that the Subject had little bank savings that could be mobilized by a guardianship order. Taking into account there was no other guardianship needs, the siblings mutually agreed to withdraw the application which was accepted by the Board. (Uploaded on 31/3/2026) |
| 11. | Review (4/6/2025) |
Subject was a woman aged 56 who suffered from an organic brain syndrome and had cerebral vascular accident. She was found unconscious at a convenience store and was sent to hospital with the diagnosis of hypertension, stroke and aphasia. Her younger sister was her private guardian and took time off work to provide daily care for the Subject. The Subject has been living in private placement which is expected to continue as she has yet to reach the age criteria to apply for elderly care services at 60. The monthly maximum limit was just about sufficient for the Subject's monthly care cost, but it might increase if her younger sister returned to work and a carer had to be employed. The Subject has ample savings and a Part II application could be taken out by the guardian if required. The Guardianship Order was renewed for 3 years with her younger sister continuing as the guardian. (Uploaded on 31/3/2026) |
| 12. | Review (7/7/2025) |
Subject was a woman aged 92 who suffered from cognitive deficits caused by a stroke. She was a widow with 2 sons and a daughter. Her elder son passed away in 2021 and younger son has migrated to the United Kingdom. The daughter was the main carer in Hong Kong and also the private guardian of the Subject. The Subject had ample savings and has been residing at a private residential care home for the elderly. The Subject was offered a subsidized placement at a nursing home in June 2023 but declined as she wished to continue staying at the current care home. As the Subject has ample financial resources and in view of her advanced age, this was considered a suitable welfare plan for her. The Guardianship Order was renewed for 3 years with the Subject's daughter continuing as the private guardian. (Uploaded on 31/3/2026) |
| 13. | Review (20/8/2025) |
Subject was a woman aged 77 who suffered from schizoaffective disorder and mixed type dementia. She was a widow with 2 sons who both showed genuine concern towards her but they have serious mistrust against each other and did not have any direct contact. Although they did not have any conflict on visitation schedule and welfare plan of the Subject and the elder son had been appointed as a committee of the estate of the Subject by the High Court under Part II application, they prefer to continue the appointment of public guardian to provide supervision and mediate any potential disputes. As the financial needs can be managed by the Committee, the Guardianship Order was renewed for 1 year with (a) - (e) powers under S.59R(3) of the Ordinance only, with the Director of Social Welfare continuing as the guardian. (Uploaded on 31/3/2026) |
| 14. | Application (22/8/2025) |
Subject was a woman aged 89 who suffered from mixed type dementia. She was a childless widow and lived alone in a public rental housing unit. As there was no relative of the Subject, application was made by a Medical Social Worker before her discharge. Subsequently, the Subject was admitted to a subvented elderly home and she liked the living environment there. The Director of Social Welfare was appointed as the public guardian initially for 1 year. The Subject's savings were adequate for her future maintenance and would also be managed by the public guardian. (Uploaded on 31/3/2026) |
| 15. | Application (5/9/2025) |
Subject was a man aged 96 who suffered from vascular dementia. He was a widower with 4 children and has been living in a non-subsidized placement at the elderly home since January 2019. A subvented nursing home was offered during COVID but was declined to avoid a change of living environment taking into account the Subject's senile age and the complicated administrative procedures during the pandemic. The Subject had some bank savings in a foreign currency and was previously granted discretion to disregard those savings for CSSA, but as the discretion period was expiring, the eldest daughter applied for Guardianship Order to mobilize such savings to support his daily expenses. The applicant was appointed as the guardian for one year. (Uploaded on 31/3/2026) |
| 16. | Application (9/10/2025) |
Subject was a woman aged 71 who suffered from a stroke causing cognitive deficits. She used to live with her husband before the stroke and the guardianship application was taken out by a Medical Social Worker to handle the Subject's finance and accommodation. The husband was caring towards the Subject but could not take care of the Subject at home due to his own health problem, while her daughter has migrated to Australia and unable to provide care and support to the Subject. The Subject was admitted to a private residential home under the Enhanced Bought Place Scheme after the guardianship application was made. As the husband could not handle the duties of a private guardian, the Director of Social Welfare was appointed as the public guardian for one year. (Uploaded on 31/3/2026) |
