Application for appointments — welfare guardian — property manager — intellectual disability — capacity — conflict of interest — Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988, ss 5, 6, 7(b), 8, 9, 12, 13, 24, 25, 26(b), 28, 29 & 31 — KR v MR [2004] 2 NZLR 847 — Hutt Valley DHB v MJP [2012] NZFLR 458 — Re G (PPPR jurisdiction) 1994 11 FRNZ 643. The applicant applied for orders under the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act ("PPPRA") that she or a close family friend be appointed as the welfare guardian and property manager of her adult daughter who has an intellectual disability and various health conditions. In determining whether to grant orders under the PPPRA, a court starts with the presumption that a person has capacity to understand the nature and foresee the consequences of decisions in respect of matters relating to their personal care and welfare and to communicate those decisions. Someone making decisions that an ordinary prudent person would not make in and of itself does not establish a lack of capacity. It is for the person seeking orders under the PPPRA to rebut this presumption on the balance of probabilities, but the consequences of the subject person losing their civil rights must be borne in mind. The daughter subject person was on an invalid's benefit and lived in a house (owned by the trust set up by her mother) with her partner who, evidence established, was abusive towards her. The partner would make her give him money that had been designated for food and use it to buy alcohol. There had also been multiple police callouts to the house for domestic violence. The Court-appointed report writer noted that the living arrangement was cause for concern: the carpets were soiled, the curtains torn and a wall had been slashed with a knife by the daughter when she was angry at her mother. The report writer also noted that the relationship between the daughter and her partner was toxic. There was disagreement between the mother and daughter around how the daughter should spend her money and the mother was concerned for the daughter's wellbeing in her relationship with her partner. The Court considered the capacity of the daughter and the decisions such as entering into and staying in a toxic relationship, drinking and smoking, not using incontinence pads and missing healthcare appointments were not sufficient reason by themselves to find a lack of capacity. In considering whether the daughter could understand the nature and foresee the consequences of alternative options, the Court gave weight to the evidence of the report writer who noted that the daughter's intellectual disability was such that it caused significant impairment in intellectual and adaptive functioning. The intellectual disability caused her to lack insight into her medical issues and the need for support with those issues. The Judge therefore concluded that the daughter lacked the capacity and the Court had jurisdiction. The appointment of a welfare guardian was the only way to ensure that the daughter's needs were met. In considering who to appoint as welfare guardian, the Judge noted that the tension between the mother and daughter was such that it could exacerbate the situation; the close family friend was in a better position to assist. The Judge also considered that the family friend would be an appropriate property manager; there was a possibility of conflict of interest between the mother and daughter as the mother's house had been mortgaged to secure the trust property. The Judge made orders that the family friend be appointed as welfare guardian and property manager, to be reviewed in three years' time. Judgment Date: 18 August 2020. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *