DMO v Public Guardian [2018] NSWCATAD 268

DMO v Public Guardian [2018] NSWCATAD 268

It was in Mr X's best interests to continue treatment with the psychiatrist who had treated him since 2013, and DMO's support and additional information were not sufficiently significant to justify ending that long-standing treatment relationship when the psychiatrist had said he would withdraw if a parent attended.

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Administrative Review / Review of Public Guardian Decision to Withhold Consent for DMO to Attend Mr X's Psychiatric Appointment
Outcome
The Public Guardian's decision was affirmed.
Legal Topics
['administrative Review of Public Guardian Decision' 'correct or Preferable Decision' 'welfare and Interests of Person Under Guardianship' 'attendance at Medical Appointment']
['administrative Law' 'guardianship'] ['administrative Review of Public Guardian Decision' 'correct or Preferable Decision' 'welfare and Interests of Person Under Guardianship' 'attendance at Medical Appointment']

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Administrative Review / Review of Public Guardian Decision to Withhold Consent for DMO to Attend Mr X's Psychiatric Appointment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Public Guardian's decision to exclude DMO from Mr X's next psychiatric appointment was the correct or preferable decision." "Whether Mr X's welfare and interests were best served by maintaining continuity of care with his psychiatrist without DMO attending the consultation."]

Ratio Decidendi

It was in Mr X's best interests to continue treatment with the psychiatrist who had treated him since 2013, and DMO's support and additional information were not sufficiently significant to justify ending that long-standing treatment relationship when the psychiatrist had said he would withdraw if a parent attended.

Court Disposition

The Public Guardian's decision was affirmed.

Orders

  • ["The Respondent's decision made on 29 June 2018 to withhold consent to the applicant to attend the next specialist medical appointment for the applicant's son with a psychiatrist on 20 November 2018 is affirmed."]