Contact Restrictions between P and their Family in the Court of Protection: How Decisions Are Made 

By Hanna Whitehead, 27th November 2025

Contact is a recurring issue in Court of Protection proceedings. I have been working in this area for eight years and my rough estimate would be that a dispute around contact (justified or otherwise) has arisen in around 30-40% of the cases I work on.

Where an adult lacks capacity to make their own decisions about who they see and how often, disagreements can arise between families and professionals about what contact is appropriate, safe, or sustainable. For families, restrictions on contact (e.g. limited hours of contact, contact only via phone or video-link, supervised contact only) can feel abrupt and disproportionate. It can also be interpreted as a ‘punishment’ for querying or complaining about their relative’s care.

This post explains how the Court approaches these cases, what the legal framework actually requires, and how evidence is scrutinised.

Where I have referred to ‘public bodies,’ this means the Local Authority, Integrated Care Board (ICB) or Health Board; whoever is the Supervising Authority that makes decisions about (and sometimes funds) a vulnerable person’s residence and care arrangements.

Capacity to make decisions about contact 

Before the Court can make any decision about contact, it must determine whether the person (“P”) has capacity to make such decisions themselves. This cannot be assumed on the basis of assessments regarding capacity in other areas e.g. residence. 

Capacity must be assessed for the specific decision, and sometimes the specific person, in question. I have seen cases where P is deemed to have capacity to determine contact generally, but lacks capacity regarding one individual. This may be where P has been particularly reliant on that person for a prolonged period of time and is unable to weigh up the impact of seeing that person on their wellbeing.

If P has capacity, P makes the decision, even if professionals disagree or would make a different choice. If P lacks capacity, the Court can then consider what contact is in P’s best interests. This is, of course, subject to the agreement of the person with whom contact is being considered – the Court cannot force a person to have contact with P if they do not consent, nor will they insist that P have contact if that is not what they want.

Best interests decisions are P-focused 

If P lacks capacity to decide on contact, the Mental Capacity Act (s4) requires that decisions are made in P’s best interests. This means the decision must be centred on what is best for P – not what family members want, and not what is easiest for care providers. 

Under s4(6) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, the Court is required to consider, so far as is reasonably ascertainable:

(a) the person’s past and present wishes and feelings (and, in particular, any relevant written statement made by him when he had capacity),

(b) the beliefs and values that would be likely to influence his decision if he had capacity, and

(c) the other factors that he would be likely to consider if he were able to do so.

S4(7) of the Mental Capacity Act requires the views of of family, carers and professionals to be taken into account, if it is appropriate and practical to consult them. This does not necessarily mean considering what that person (e.g. a relative) wants to happen, but rather utilising their knowledge of P to help inform what P would decide.

 The final decision must always be based only on what is best for P. 

Care home rules vs Court-ordered restrictions 

Restrictions on contact can occur in one of three ways: 

1. The placement can impose their own rules; 
2. The Local Authority/Health Board/ICB can apply to Court to restrict contact; or 
3. The Court can order restrictions without such application. 

I will look at each of these in turn, and then consider what evidence is required to authorise such restrictions and how this can be challenged.

Placement-imposed restrictions 

Regulation 9A of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations and the associated CQC guidance (link here) states that ‘Unless there are exceptional circumstances, service users whose care or treatment involves an overnight stay or the provision of accommodation in a care home, hospital or hospice, must be facilitated to receive visits at those premises.’ 

The starting position is therefore that contact should be facilitated. However, 9A4 states that ‘Nothing in this regulation requires a service user to receive a visit, take a visit out of a care home or be accompanied…  where the service user lacks the capacity to give consent, where it would not be in the service user’s best interests.’ 

There is no specific definition as to what constitutes ‘exceptional circumstances,’ however it is suggested this may include, ‘to protect the person using the service, other people using the service, staff or people visiting, where there is a significant risk to their health, safety or welfare.’

Placements are therefore able to restrict contact if it is deemed in P’s best interests. However, the following is contained within the guidance to the Regulations: 

• ‘Where a risk has been identified we expect providers to implement appropriate precautions to enable a visit to happen safely, rather than prevent visiting altogether.’ 
• ‘This should always follow the preferences of the person using the service, wherever possible, and their assessed needs. ‘ 
• ‘Providers must consider that any restriction to a person’s right to receive visitors is lawful, has a legitimate aim and is proportionate. ‘Proportionate’ means that there is the least restriction possible to achieve the aim.’ 
• ‘If there is a need for additional precautions or a restriction to be put in place, the provider should apply the most proportionate and least restrictive option.’ 
• ‘Providers should not apply blanket decisions or long-term restrictions. They should review decisions to restrict visiting regularly by working together with the people involved.’ 

In essence, if there are concerns about contact, then restricting contact should be a last resort and alternative measures should be considered.

Contact Agreements

An alternative measure  may be agreeing a Contract of Expectations for both staff and the family, setting out  what  each party understands to be expected of them.

In Re RK (Capacity: Contact: Inherent Jurisdiction) (2023), the judge declined to authorise a specified contact arrangement as he deemed RK had capacity and did not want contact with her family, but he did recommend that a ‘supportive framework’ be  implemented, as follows:

‘I do not feel it right that I should prescribe the precise terms of the supportive framework; it should nonetheless incorporate – so far as possible – the essential points raised by each of the parties.’

These included, although were not limited to:

• R to be asked about contact with the family at key events in the calendar – birthdays / Christmas / Easter;
• R will be supported by the key worker to integrate with her friends outside of the placement;
• Updates to be provided to the family at intervals (three monthly) about progress with attempts to encourage R to have contact; and
• A key worker shall be appointed to spend time with R and ensure that her family remain alive in her mind and that she is encouraged to think about her future involving them in her life.

If contact restrictions are implemented, the public body should be informed and consideration given to seeking Court authorisation.

Public Body and Court-imposed restrictions 

The Local Authority/ICB/Health Board is able to restrict contact between P and their family (if P lacks capacity), but they should make an application to the Court of Protection to authorise any restrictions. The Court will be very critical if the public body does not make that application promptly.

The public body has a duty to consider how meaningful contact can be promoted if in P’s best interests. As above, the starting point will always be that P should be able to see the people important to them in as natural a way as possible.

When restrictions on contact may be justified 

Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights protects the right to respect for private and family life. However, this right can be lawfully restricted if necessary and proportionate to protect the rights and freedoms of others – in this context, P. This means that Article 8 is not breached if limiting contact is necessary to protect P.

For example, in Re G (Court of Protection: Injunction) [2022] EWCOP 25, an injunction that restricted the family’s contact with P (amongst other things) was held to be lawful on the basis of evidence from numerous witnesses stating that P’s father had been hostile and intimidating to staff, and had tampered with medical equipment.

See also MB v PB [2022[ EWCOP 14, blogged about here. In this case, face-to-face contact between P and her husband had been prohibited, following allegations (and subsequently ‘findings’ – see below) of controlling and coercive behaviour.

The Court must consider Article 8 carefully, but a justified and proportionate restriction will not necessarily breach it.  

Contact restrictions can take different forms: frequency restrictions, supervised contact, limits on location, or suspension of contact entirely. They may be justified in a range of situations, including: 

1. Where contact causes distress or destabilisation 
   For some people, particularly those with significant cognitive impairment, contact can lead to confusion, agitation, or behavioural deterioration afterwards. In A Local Authority v PB (2011), the Court permitted night-time restrictions because evidence showed P became more confused and unsettled following overnight contact. 
2. Where contact undermines P’s stability or placement 
   If family members are alleged to make significantly negative comments to P about the placement, this may cause P to demonstrate challenging behaviour, leading to the placement not being able to meet their needs. A move to a new placement, especially if unplanned, is a significant risk in itself. This may also apply where family members are said to be aggressive or hostile to staff, causing P distress and affecting the staff’s ability to meet their needs. See Luba Macpherson and her concerns regarding the care of her daughter.
3. Where there are concerns about physical risk 
   This could relate to ignoring essential dietary rules, not following medical instructions, or behaviour which puts P or others at physical risk. 

By contrast, in SR v A Local Authority & Anor (2018) EWCOP 36 , the Court refused restrictions on a husband’s contact where there was no evidence that contact posed a risk. The Local Authority were concerned that the husband had made comments that indicated he was in support of euthanasia and exhibited ‘distorted or grotesque thinking,’ (§18) but did not allege that the husband concretely intended to end P’s life. P had remained safe during extensive previous unsupervised contact. It was held by HHJ Buckingham that: ‘Whilst I accept that JR’s comments have given rise to legitimate anxiety on the part of the professionals, I do not consider that there was adequate investigation into the reasons why JR has made such comments and what he understands by the notion of supporting euthanasia, which from his evidence related to the right to self-determination and dignity… I have reached the conclusion that the restriction sought by A Local Authority is neither justifiable, proportionate or necessary.’ (§44 & §46)

Occasionally, assertions are made that P’s family are demonstrating ‘coercive or controlling’ behaviour and this can be promoted as a justification for restricting contact. The Family Procedure Rules 2010 in Practice Direction 12J define coercive behaviour as ‘being an act or a pattern of acts of assault, threats, humiliation and intimidation or other abuse that is used to harm, punish, or frighten the victim.’ A recent example is Caroline Grady, who was found to have acted abusively towards her mother – see previous blog here.

Unfortunately, terms like ‘coercive behaviour’ are sometimes used by public bodies in a vague context when family members believe they are simply being protective. Such  allegations (and all others) should be properly particularised (i.e. details of specific events provided) and their meanings clarified.

Restrictions must always be in P’s best interests – and the Court will examine their basis 

Contact limitations can sometimes arise where providers (e.g., a care home) misinterpret a family raising concern as hostility or risk or adopt a defensive or risk-averse position. This frequently feels like a punishment directed towards the relatives for raising concerns about the care that their loved one receives.

However, when the Court becomes involved, it will examine the actual basis for the restrictions. The Court will not impose or uphold limits as a punitive measure. Any restriction must be justified by reference to preventing harm to P, and must be proportionate to the level of risk. Where the evidence does not support restrictions, the Court will not endorse them and will remove or relax them. 

Evidence and scrutiny 

A restriction must be capable of being justified by evidence. Evidence might include: 

• care home records 
• incident logs 
• behavioural charts 
• phone, message or call logs 

• CCTV
• medical records. 

Sometimes decisions are made rapidly when concerns arise, before full evidence is obtained. The Court may agree to short-term protective measures while records, CCTV, call logs or incident reports are reviewed, but with the understanding that these are short-term only. Permanent or long-term restrictions will require proper evidence. There is no set form that this evidence should take, but it may involve the records set out above, witness statements, expert reports, etc.

Family members who are parties to proceedings will almost always be able to file their own witness statements and attach evidence to those, if required. The Court order will provide a set date for these to be provided. Family members who are not parties may also be allowed to provide a statement, but this is subject to the Court’s discretion and permission for this must also be contained within an order.

Evidence that can be filed by family members often includes correspondence with the public bodies that demonstrates reasons for lifting contact e.g. birthday cards showing an ongoing, loving relationship, examples of positive contact, etc.

Records

Families (and all other parties) are entitled to ask the Court to order that these records are disclosed in proceedings. They may assist in determining, for example, whether P truly demonstrates challenging behaviour after contact or whether there may be a different trigger. A care home or placement would need an exceptional reason for refusing to release records into proceedings, although it can be agreed for some parts to be redacted if necessary (e.g. if there are references to another resident).

The Court may determine that some records are not appropriate for involved family members to see, and this will be considered in each case. Sometimes an order is drafted that allows only P’s solicitor to see the records. This is almost always the case (in order, it is said, to promote P’s dignity and privacy) but this can be challenged by family members and reasons requested.

If concerns arise around the accuracy of the records, this can be challenged by raising the issues within a witness statement (which parties are generally required to provide at set intervals,, requesting additional records from a different organisation or by asking the Court to order that the author of the records provide a witness statement to explain any inconsistencies or errors. This is subject to the Court’s discretion and reasons/evidence must be provided as to why these courses of action are necessary.

Finding of Fact Hearings

The Court of Protection is also able to order a ‘Finding of Fact’ hearing. This is a relatively lengthy hearing where the Court will hear from relevant witnesses who will be questioned by the other parties. This allows the Court to decide ‘on the balance of probabilities’ (i.e. whether an event is more likely than not to have happened, often simplified to a likelihood of 51% or higher) whether a certain thing happened or not. This is different to, and much lower than, the criminal burden of proof which is ‘beyond reasonable doubt.’

For example, they may make a finding that a relative did or did not financially abuse P, or withhold their medication, etc. The allegation is then either accepted by the Court as fact or, if the finding was not made, the allegation cannot be relied upon further (see Abuse and coercive control? A fact-finding hearing and exoneration, where a relative was exonerated from the allegations made against her by public bodies.)

In essence, the Court may order a Finding of Fact Hearing if the disputed issues of fact are relevant to the decision as to what is in P’s best interests.

In essence, a Fact Finding hearing may be ordered where the issues in dispute are relevant to the decision regarding what would be in P’s best interests.

These hearings are quite rare in the Court of Protection when compared to Child Care proceedings and are only implemented when ‘necessary and proportionate.’ In Nottingham City Council v SV & Anor [2025] EWCOP 37, Lieven J stated as follows:

55. The facts which are sought to be found must have a direct impact on the welfare decisions that need to be made in respect of P. The fact finding must be “necessary” for the determination of those welfare decisions. The fact finding exercise must be proportionate to the issues that need to be determined. In determining proportionality, the likely cost to public funds, the time taken and the impact of delay on P are all relevant considerations.

In that case, it was deemed that it was not necessary or proportionate for a Finding of Fact hearing to take place, as all parties (including P) were in agreement with a proposed plan involving a Contact Plan and a gradual build-up of contact. It was also noted that (1) P would be fully protected by this plan, (2) a hearing would take two days of ‘the very limited time available for Court of Protection hearings at Tier 2 level,’ and (3) the cost to public funds would be ‘disproportionate’, given all parties were publicly funded.

P’s Representative

Where P is a party to the proceedings, P will have their own solicitor. If there is a paid advocate, Relevant Person’s Representative (RPR) or Independent Mental Capacity Advocate (IMCA), usually the solicitor is contacted and instructed by them, after consulting with P if appropriate. Alternatively, if proceedings are started and there is no person fulfilling the role of Litigation Friend, the Official Solicitor (an independent organisation whose role is solely to promote the best interests of vulnerable parties) will instruct a solicitor themselves.

P’s representative is not instructed by any of the public bodies or the care provider, and is able to raise queries, test assertions, and obtain disclosure. Any evidence is therefore tested and evaluated by a person who has no ties to the public bodies, as well as the Court.

Dependent on the nature of the proceedings (i.e. under which section of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 they have been issued), P may be entitled to non-means tested Legal Aid, regardless of their financial circumstances. In other situations, their eligibility may be dependent on their income, capital and assets.

P’s wishes and feelings are also incredibly important. The Court is able to override these wishes, but they will always be considered under s4(6) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. P’s views will be obtained by their own representative who is appointed for this reason and they will file a statement setting out their experience and interactions with P. If relatives disagree that P’s views are truly as set out in the statement, they will be able to explain in witness evidence why they feel this and how the accuracy could be improved e.g. if the visit took place without an interpreter present, which resulted in a language barrier.

What families can do if they disagree with contact restrictions

If family members believe a restriction is not justified or is disproportionate, they can: 

• ask the placement to provide written reasons 
• ask that relevant records are disclosed 
• keep a record of visits and their impact 

• request that concerns are put before the Court for determination 
• make an application to the Court directly.

Family members are not entitled to see the records of any P who is an adult, regardless of their relationship to P, unless there is a Deputyship or Lasting Power of Attorney for Health & Welfare in place or P has capacity to consent to this. The person in the role of the Relevant Person’s Representative (RPR) is expected to review the Care Plans, but other records are protected. As above, the Court can order disclosure of these records.

If the matter is not before the Court of Protection already, then, subject to Court permission, family members who are not fulfilling the role of RPR, Deputy or Attorney can make applications – they’re not wholly dependent on waiting for the LA or others with formal roles  to make an application.

Legal Aid may be available for family members in Court of Protection proceedings about contact and welfare, although this is subject to means testing and examination of the merits of the case.

Conclusion 

Contact decisions are complex because P’s Article 8 rights must be balanced with their safety and often it is not entirely clear at the outset of proceedings what is in their best interests. 

The Court’s role is to step in when there is disagreement, assess evidence, and determine what arrangements genuinely promote P’s welfare. Restrictions must be necessary, proportionate, and justified. Where they are not, the Court can (and does) refuse or remove them. 

 Hanna Whitehead is an Associate in the Court of Protection: Health & Welfare Team at Ramsdens Solicitors LLP.