Then, I read the Report! I could
not believe the contents! My family were astounded.
Again, the main instigator was Peter McGivern, a man
I did not know, a man who ‘assisted’
the Guardianship Board on many occasions. It was full
of selective, inaccurate, contradictory,
unsubstantiated statements, slandering my character. I
was denied natural justice in
being denied the opportunity to question those who
made those statements.
It appears that the Guardianship Board with the
assistance of Dr Skarbek had my husband on a
waiting list for a nursing home in Sydney without
informing me! Yet the Guardianship Board
advocates that their ‘clients’
should be allowed to live as normal a life as
possible for as long as possible, in the community
and preserving family relationships. They
did this behind my back! My rescuing my husband on
26th March spoiled their plan!
Dr Skarbek’s report presented to the hearing was
over 5 weeks old. My husband had made a great
improvement in that time, but this didn’t suit
them. In this report my husband seems to generally be
improving each day, until they knew I was going to
Sydney then conveniently he was deteriorating! I
think not!
Dr Skarbeck insisted that my husband had severe
dementia. This was a lie. At that time my husband had
periods of understanding and he was
and still is
capable of doing things for himself. She said he was totally
incapable of doing anything without
assistance. This may have been the case when he was
first admitted to Rozelle Hospital but it certainly
was not the case at the time I ‘kidnapped’
him some weeks later.
Hospital staff knowlingly gave false
information about my husband and myself. They knew
nothing of our life together. The report contained a
statement from a Ms French from Balmain Hospital,
which was made 2 days after my husband’s
admittance to that hospital for tests. She provide
these false statements, taken as truth at the
hearing!
She “understood Mrs Jamie Furner may
have an interest in the building and be entitled to
proceeds when and if it was sold.”
What business was it of her’s in the first
place! She continues with other statements which were
totally untrue and nothing to do with her nursing my
husband back to health! . These documents can be
provided. The staff at both hospitals were unduly
concerned with my husband’s financial position.
Again I asked what concern was this to them, they are
nursing staff, not financial advisers! It was also
inferred in this report that I was less than loyal to
my husband..
Margaret Watson tried to coerce Norma Furner into
supporting the Board at their extraordinary hearing
on 27th March to obtain an injunction against me
‘to protect the Redfern property”.
Norma refused.
Norma Furner had told Margaret Watson some time in
early February 1997 that she had a buyer for the
business premises and wished to close the sale. At
this time a date for a hearing had not
yet been set. Margaret Watson told Mrs Norma Furner
that she was not permitted to sell the
premises at that time, she had to wait until
the Board had their hearing! They had not
had a hearing, there was no
Financial Order and they denied Norma
Furner the opportunity to close a sale for the
premises in which she was offered $1,200,000 which
coincidentally it was sold for some 4 months later.
If Norma had been allowed to close this deal things
would have been settled 4 months earlier and she may
have lived to enjoy some of her money.
Then of course if this had happened and the
accountancy work was already being handled at the
time of the hearing there would have been no reason
to hand over financial control to the OPC. Margaret
Watson had to make sure that didn’t
happen. Unfortunately Norma Furner
believed Margaret Watson when she told her she had no
right to sell the premises at that time.
Margaret Watson alleged in her Report that many of
the ‘witnesses’ she had drummed up were
‘friends’ of ours. This
was a lie. These people knew nothing of our life
together. She involved people I had never met who
were purported to be great friends of my husband. My
husband and I had been together for 27 years at that
time and I had never met any of these “great
friends”.
The tribunal accepted information (
“evidence” ) provided without
question. Who knows what would have
happened if my husband and I HAD appeared in person.
He may have been removed from my care at that time!
After all it states in Dr Skarbek’s report that
he “remains severely cognitively
impaired and is awaiting appropriate placement.”
Nowhere does it state that his wife should be
informed of this plan! The tribunal made an Interim
Order adjourning the Guardianship issue but gave
control of our finances to the Office of the
Protective Commissioner. On the current website for
the Protective office it states, under the heading
“Who is
the Protective Commissioner?”
“The Protective Commissioner is an independent
public official legally appointed to protect and
administer the financial affairs and property of
people unable to make financial decisions for
themselves and where there is no
other person suitable or able to assist.”
This is a lie! In this case there was another person suitable
AND able to assist. I was the
ONLY applicant, I was and am Mr Furner’s wife,
with over 20 years experience working in accounts.