Peter, a person under assistance in Taiwan & Germany

Tien, Yu-Tzu

Li, Yu-Lin

Xie, Dai-Ling

Friederike Basten

Nicole Görtz

Julia Peetz

Melinda Titze

Peter’s case outline & possible issues

Peter’s case

Residence and risk of homelessness

Peter Y. has mental health issues and lives in an apartment in Cologne or in Taipei. He is supported by a professional Betreuerin who has a scope of function covering: financial affairs, affairs concerning administration and social welfare and affairs around the apartment, or is under assistance. One day Peter Y. expresses his decision to stop paying the rent for the apartment. The consequence following this decision would be that he delays payment of the rent and the landlord has the right to terminate the contract after two months.

The Betreuerin/the assistant tries to explain the situation and the risk of losing the apartment. Peter Y. then answers that he won´t lose the apartment because “somebody” told him paying the rent is not necessary. The Betreuer/the assistant decides to wait but after three weeks Peter Y. did not change his decision. He is still convinced that he does not have to pay the rent and may use the money for what he wants.

The Betreuerin/the assistant asks herself what she is obliged to do. The Dilemma: If she does not arrange the payment, the landlord will terminate the contract. Peter Y. likes his apartment very much and it would be very difficult to find a new apartment for him. Peter Y. does not want to live on the street or in an accommodation for homeless people.

Peter’s case

Peter’s possible issues

Law of Assistance in civil code

in Taiwan & Germany

The difference between Assistant in Taiwan & Betreuer in Germany

Difference 2 : Who would be the Assistant / Betreuer ? Who is usually the Betreuer* in Germany?

Difference 3 : Rights of the Assistant/Betreuer

		Taiwan	Germany
	power	power of approval	the delegated power
			financial affairs
		significant financial	administration
			social welfare
	scope	affairs and any
			health care
		procedural action
			affairs of the apartment
			residence determination

Peter-centered approach

Framework of our solutions

1.Affirm possible issues for Peter

●Who is “somebody” ?

●Does Peter understand the consequence of not paying the rent?

●Could the Betreuer/Assistant pay the rent by using Peter’s money without his permission?

2.Work with Peter

●Establish good rapport with him.

●Collect information about Peter & what resources we have.

●Confirm Peter’s ‘will & needs’

3.After conversation→ Decision making : ？／pay the rent.

●Taiwan: Peter can decide by himself without the assistant’s approval.

●Germany: respect Peter’s ‘true will’, decision made by Peter insofar as this does not run counter to his best interests.

Possible issue 1

Who is “somebody” ?

Who is “SOMEBODY”?

●Why should we know who “SOMEBODY” is?

❖If ‘somebody’ is not a real person, but Peter's hallucination…

■Does Peter need some medical assistance?

❖If ‘somebody’ is a real person…

■Will the person affect Peter's life?

Possible issue 2

Does Peter understand the consequence of not paying the rent?

What could a Psychologist do for Peter?

1.Have an interview with Peter.

2.Structure of the Interview:

●The Purpose of Interview

●Preparation before the Interview

●Communication Considerations

●During the Interview

The purpose of interview

●Before Peter finally decides whether to pay the rent

❖We hope that through the support of social workers or psychologists, we can have in-depth discussions with Peter to help him make a decision that meets his personal wishes.

Preparation before the interview

●Consider what factors will affect Peter’s condition

❖For the interview

■Where should we choose?

■And, what time would be better for Peter?

❖In this case, Peter said that “somebody” told him not to pay the rent

■Delusion and hallucination may affect his cognitive abilities

During the interview

●If there are multiple interviews, we should first build rapport with Peter in each interview.

❖How do we build rapport with Peter during the interview?

❖What else can we do when we build rapport with Peter?

■Evaluate his memory and attention

During the interview

●Why don't we confirm his wishes directly?

❖Ask and understand what Peter "knows", respect Peter's right to state his opinions and experiences, and then identify points that need further discussion

●How to help Peter understand that he must continue paying the rent to keep the house?

❖Peter should have the right to obtain correct information (facts)

Finally, we want to…

●When Peter knows the correct information, based on Peter's personal wishes and considerations, assist Peter in deciding whether to continue paying the rent.

❖How to confirm his willingness?

Possible issue 3

Could the Betreuer/Assistant pay the rent by using Peter’s money without his permission?

The problem cannot be solved in these frameworks…

●There is no regular report system to supervise the decision made by the Assistant.

●Although we value and want to respect Peter's decision-making ability, we still have to admit that there are limitations within the regulations and practice. (e.g. it’s hard to confirm ‘true’ will; dilemma may still exist after conversation, so the final decision may go against one of Peter’s wills.)

●In Taiwan’s regulatory system, the Assistant does not have any power to give approval for paying the rent or not→ It is doubtful that Peter can be responsible for his decision, especially regarding the consequence of a loss.

According to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

●Basically, it is important to balance between basic needs and high-level-needs (Physiological vs. Self-Actualization).

●But in some particular situations (such as paying the rent or not), which relate to safety or physiological needs, basic needs should be given priority to high-level-needs.

Thank

you

Do you have any question?