This turned out to be a salutary opportunity for me to experience a “judge’s eye view” of a remote hearing. I can now better appreciate the somewhat isolating and disjointed experience it creates for the decision-maker sitting in the nearly empty courtroom.
We appreciate that it would be very difficult for clinicians and judges to take a path that would put EJ’s life at risk. Yet, the trauma of her autonomy being overruled, and the loss of trust in professionals and in her own agency are not insignificant considerations.
Celia Kitzinger, 5th December 2022 This is the fifth Court of Protection case I’ve observed about someone with hoarding disorder. (Take a look at my previous blog post: “A case of hoarding” which describes plans to return a person home with safeguards in place to keep her safe.) The woman at the centre of the case I’mContinue reading “Hoarding disorder, dementia and a wish to return home”
By Catalia Griffiths, 2nd December 2022 I am an assistant psychologist working with Older People at Bensham hospital in Gateshead. Claire Martin is my line manager. On my first induction day with Claire, she mentioned that, outside of work, she is a member of the core group of the Open Justice Court of Protection Project. I rememberContinue reading ““I don’t want to be here… I want to go home””
By Joanna Booth, 30th November 2022 The person at the centre of this case (PB) is a 65-old woman who had a brain haemorrhage in 2018. This was so severe that it left her with a lasting brain injury and significantly impaired cognitive functions and since leaving hospital she’s been looked after in a specialistContinue reading “Coercive and controlling behaviour continuing after brain injury: Matters of finance and contact”
The judge summarised the proceedings stating “I formally record the LPAs are invalid and should not be registered, and the application for deputyship for property and affairs is approved”. The LPAs were invalid was because Stephen lacked capacity at the time of signing the documents.
It would be helpful for the Guidance to consider ways in which the taint of deception could be removed, as far as possible, from cases involving closed hearings and to recognise and seek to minimise the moral injury they can cause.
At any point in the last two years of treatment, A might have discovered the medication in her food, or been alerted to the medication by a carer. At any point her grandparents (who visited her in person) could have commented on her pubertal development and raised suspicions. Or she herself could have questioned her breast development, her hair growth or changing body shape. Was there really no contingency plan in place to deal with this?
By Joanna Booth, 16 November 2022 The case I observed on 10 November 2022 (COP 13966522) was heard before Deputy District Judge Sophy Miles. A woman, SB, is in a care home waiting for dementia and occupational therapy assessment. Her age was not mentioned. She’s been deprived of her liberty since 27 February 2020. When first visitedContinue reading “When wishes and feelings change: A s.21A case but the applicant is now happy with where she lives”
Sometimes it’s impossible to report meaningfully on a case without conveying information that makes it “likely” that the person at the centre of the case can be identified.