Listen to him, listen to his mother: The William Verden hearing

Parents, in my experience, are the best judges, of what their children with disabilities can achieve. Our children are constantly under-estimated, set aside, and given insufficient care and support. William has, by any estimate, done an incredible job in tolerating the treatments to date. He has shown exceptional resilience and courage in the face of challenges any child would find difficult, let alone one with his particular disabilities. This should be recognised in determining whether the burdens are too great, as should his clearly asserted wishes. 

Dental Clearance with Post Intensive Care Syndrome: A Compassionate Decision by Hayden J

This hearing arose because a hospital trust has applied for welfare orders under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to permit them (i) to perform a full dental clearance on M in hospital under general anaesthetic, and (ii) to use a combination of chemical and physical restraint in order to manage M’s transfer to hospital.

Capacity to Engage in Sexual Relations: A forthcoming Supreme Court hearing

By Charlotte Roscoe and Celia Kitzinger, 9th July 2021 Editorial Note: This blog post concerns a case in the Supreme Court. The Open Justice Court of Protection Project normally covers only cases in the Court of Protection. We have made an exception in this case (as we have before, for cases in the Court ofContinue reading “Capacity to Engage in Sexual Relations: A forthcoming Supreme Court hearing”

Is it lawful for C’s carers to support him in accessing a sex worker?

Z would not be able to make arrangements to visit a sex worker, or pay her, without the support of his team. The Local Authority and CCG have agreed that implementation of a carefully thought through sexual contact care plan to help Z access a sex worker would be in his best interests and they were prepared to commission a care plan. However, they would do this only if the Court would make a declaration that the care plan would be lawful and that no offense would be committed by the care workers in light of s. 39 Sexual Offences Act 2003, which criminalises actions that intentionally ‘cause or incite’ sexual activity involving a person who has a mental disorder, by a person involved in that person’s care.

An unsuitable placement approved by the Court

The decision of the court was to move him, that afternoon, to yet another placement which – counsel had acknowledged from the outset – is not really suitable for him. It was a disappointing outcome. As the judge said in his oral judgment: “None of this seems to me to be entirely satisfactory”.

Deprivation of Liberty at an Urgent Hearing

By Caroline Hanman[1] – 17th November 2020 The person at the centre of this hearing (pseudonymised as “Michael” in this post) is a young man under the age of 18. He’s autistic and he has learning difficulties and ADHD (“attention deficit hyperactivity disorder”).  He sometimes exhibits challenging behaviour which on occasion has resulted in physical injury toContinue reading “Deprivation of Liberty at an Urgent Hearing”

A Litigant in Person returns to the virtual court – Navigating Approaches to Care when Family and Local Authority Disagree – Part 2, One Week On

“…I also recognise that I may hear things that I disagree with in the course of a hearing. When something unexpected is said, I noted that the Judge needs to quickly form a view on whether it is relevant to the hearing or not, and if not, let it go…”

Navigating Approaches to Care when Family and Local Authority Disagree

By Hilary Paxton – 31st July, 2020 On 29 June I started a job as a 2-day per week trainee Independent Mental Capacity Advocate (IMCA) and Relevant Person’s Representative (RPR) for an advocacy provider in Yorkshire. I am currently doing my induction and lots of training.  I have never worked with the Court of ProtectionContinue reading “Navigating Approaches to Care when Family and Local Authority Disagree”

Protection versus Autonomy and Pragmatism versus Principle: A Balancing Act in the Court of Protection

“This is an account of a Court of Protection hearing before Mr Justice Hayden in the case of Re ‘D’ on Friday 19th June 2020. In it I aim to provide an insight into the hearing itself, and — as someone with a keen interest in the law but no legal qualifications — what it was like to observe…”