What is wrong with Deprivation of Liberty and selling P’s home to pay care fees?

By Jenny Kitzinger, 10th February 2024 Mr G is a man in his sixties with vascular dementia and frontal lobe damage. The Court of Protection has found that he lacks capacity to litigate and to make decisions regarding his residence and care. He has lived mostly in residential care since 2019 – but he doesn’tContinue reading “What is wrong with Deprivation of Liberty and selling P’s home to pay care fees?”

Covert medication, the ‘causative nexus’ and (yet again) issues with the Transparency Order

By Daniel Clark, 14 July 2023 A man in his 60s, living with an acquired brain injury is refusing medication for the management of his diabetes.  The applicant local authority has applied to the court for the approval of a covert medication plan. In the previous hearing (which I blogged about here), Theis J had requestedContinue reading “Covert medication, the ‘causative nexus’ and (yet again) issues with the Transparency Order”

Communicating bad news: A s.21A decision

By Celia Kitzinger, 1 March 2022 Ms C says she hates where she lives – in a residential care home (I’ll call it“Beech House”). She has said so “loudly”. She expressed her “strongly held feelings” directly to the judge when he met with her on 25th January 2022.  Throughout that meeting she maintained, in strong terms, thatContinue reading “Communicating bad news: A s.21A decision”

Clinically-assisted nutrition and hydration: Decisions that cannot be ignored or delayed

By Jenny Kitzinger, 23rd June 2021 Hearings in the Court of Protection often bring crucial issues into sharp relief in a vivid, poignant and intellectually rigorous way.  This was certainly so in the hearing I observed last week: Case No. 1375980T on 10 June 2021. It concerned GU, a 70-year-old man who sustained a severe anoxic brain injury in AprilContinue reading “Clinically-assisted nutrition and hydration: Decisions that cannot be ignored or delayed”

A life worth living? The importance of advance decisions

I joined the hearing expecting to come out of it with an increased understanding and experience of the law in this area, which would complement my studies. However, to my surprise, I left with an increased personal awareness of the importance discussing these often ‘taboo’ and topical subjects.

Unseemly turf wars and uncoordinated care

By Jenny Kitzinger, 16th December 2020 The hearing I attended on Wednesday 9th December 2020 (Case: 13382192 before District Judge Tindal), was about Mr G, an individual in his early 60s with frontal lobe disorder, diabetes and other medical issues. He wants to leave the acquired brain injury [ABI] care centre that he originally entered almost aContinue reading “Unseemly turf wars and uncoordinated care”

Waiving anonymity to promote care home visiting rights: Michelle Davies Part 1

The intention of the transparency order is to protect the person’s privacy and this is what many people who become “P”s in the Court of Protection want (or would have wanted). For others, though, their Article 8 right to privacy may be outweighed by the competing interest of their Article 10 to right to freedom of speech and open scrutiny of the circumstances in which they have been placed.

From black letter law to real-life decision making

Editor’s note: This is a report of a later hearing in the same case as the one covered in a previous blog here. By Lucy Williams, 29 October 2020 I am studying a module on Health Care Law at the University of York.  We explore how decision-making capacity is determined on the basis of the Mental Capacity ActContinue reading “From black letter law to real-life decision making”