Federal Court of Justice, 07.08.2013, Ref.: XII ZB 671/12
If an adult is no longer able to manage their own legal affairs due to an impairment caused by a mental illness or a physical, mental or psychological disability, the guardianship court can appoint a guardian (e.g. a professional guardian or an association guardian) for this person upon application or ex officio in accordance with Section 1896 BGB.
The principle of "necessity of care" must always be observed when the competent care court sets up care.
This means that care can only ever be ordered by the court if the affairs of the person concerned cannot be managed by other means without the involvement of a legal representative (Section 1896 (2) sentence 2 BGB).
Other help may include, for example, a family member, neighbourhood help or social services.
However, if such persons are to be entrusted with the management of affairs, they should be provided with an effective and complete power of attorney.
With such a power of attorney, you can authorise a person you trust to carry out any legal transactions in the event that you need care, thus avoiding the need for a guardianship order.
However, despite the granting of a power of attorney for healthcare, a guardianship may still be set up if, for example, the authorised person acts against the best interests and will of the person concerned or is no longer able to act adequately on behalf of the authorised person.
In the above-mentioned case, the Federal Court of Justice had to decide whether the appointment of a professional carer was lawful, even though the person in need of help had granted her daughter an effective notarised power of attorney before the onset of dementia.
Facts of the Case:
Dementia-stricken father had granted his daughter a notarised health care proxy
The affected person suffered from dementia. In 1997, she had granted her daughter, party 1, a notarised power of attorney.
Based on this power of attorney, party 1 organised the care of her mother. In July 2011, party 2, another daughter of the person concerned, moved into the household of the person concerned.
Since then, there have been considerable disputes between the sisters over the care of the patients.
The court appoints a professional counsellor due to disputes, daughter files a complaint
As the local court no longer considered the care of the person concerned to be secure, it ordered the care of the person concerned for the areas of health care, residence and property care and appointed a professional carer.
The appeal lodged against this by the parties to 1 was rejected by the Regional Court, against which the party to 1 finally lodged an appeal on a point of law with the Federal Court of Justice.
Decision of the Federal Court of Justice
The Federal Court of Justice also did not follow the view of the parties to 1 and decided that the courts of lower instances had rightly assumed that care was necessary.
Pursuant to Section 1896 (2) sentence 2 of the German Civil Code (BGB), legal guardianship is always not necessary if the affairs of the person concerned can be managed just as well by an authorised representative as by a guardian, so that the establishment of legal guardianship is therefore generally subordinate to an effectively granted power of attorney.
Healthcare proxy cannot prevent professional carer as daughter is unsuitable
However, a power of attorney does not prevent the appointment of a guardian if the authorised representative is unsuitable to manage the affairs of the person concerned, in particular because it is to be feared that the representation of the interests of the person concerned by that person would constitute a concrete danger to the well-being of the person concerned.
Even if the honesty of the authorised representative is beyond doubt, the priority of the authorised representative over the ordering of care requires his or her objective suitability to act in the best interests of the person concerned.
This would be lacking in the present case because the first party was not in a position to act in the best interests of the person concerned due to the unauthorised and disruptive behaviour of a third party.
Daughter had made no effort to ensure the father's care
The first party had also no longer made any serious efforts to ensure the care of the person concerned after the second party had moved in with the person concerned and had largely replaced the care services originally organised by the first party by the care service or by neighbours and acquaintances and had replaced them with her own care services, which she had arranged on her own authority.
In this respect, it was also irrelevant that the first party had organised the care of the person concerned satisfactorily in the past despite the relatively long distance from her place of residence (Upper Bavaria) to the place of residence of the person concerned (Saarland).
Ultimately, the welfare of the person concerned must always remain decisive. Finally, it must also be taken into account that the third party behaving arbitrarily does not - as the appeal suggests - ultimately benefit from its disruptive behaviour.
This is because the consequence is not that he is appointed as a carer. Rather, an uninvolved third party should be appointed as a guardian who, in case of doubt, is in a better position to prevent the disruptive behaviour of the third party.
Source: Federal Court of Justice
Lawyers in Cologne advise and represent you in social law.
Important Note: The content of this article has been prepared to the best of our knowledge and belief. However, due to the complexity and constant evolution of the subject matter, we must exclude liability and warranty. Important Notice: The content of this article has been created to the best of our knowledge and understanding. However, due to the complexity and constant changes in the subject matter, we must exclude any liability and warranty.
If you need legal advice, feel free to call us at 0221 – 80187670 or email us at info@mth-partner.de.