Capacity for sex and marriage

By Claire Martin and Celia Kitzinger, 22nd January 2021 Back in October 2020, a hearing before Mr Justice Poole (COP 13551368) was adjourned, part-heard, after inadequate reports from the expert witness, Dr Quinn.  He reported that the person at the centre of the case (she’s “AG” in the judgment and we called her “Barbara” in our previous blog) lacked theContinue reading “Capacity for sex and marriage”

A mother abroad and a family dispute – Part 2

By Daniel Cloake, 19 January 2021 As a follower of the Open Justice Court of Protection Project on Twitter I took advantage of their daily publication of upcoming Court of Protection hearings and e-mailed in my request to observe this case. Before MR JUSTICE COHENSitting as a Judge of the Court of ProtectionMonday, 11 January, 2021At 02:00Continue reading “A mother abroad and a family dispute – Part 2”

A hotel as an interim placement

By Celia Kitzinger, 15th January 2021 At a brisk 17-minute hearing on 30 December 2021 before Mr Justice Keehan (Case no. 12803319), the judge approved the applicant local authority’s order to place P in a hotel with a package of 24-hour care as a temporary measure, pending his move to a permanent placement.   Use ofContinue reading “A hotel as an interim placement”

“RPR”, “IMCA” and “Paralegal” – what are these roles?

By Tory Smith, 6th January 2021 I am a paralegal working at MJC Law. One of MJC Law’s specialties is health and welfare cases in the Court of Protection and in the vast majority of our cases we represent “P” (the protected person).  By way of my own background, I have been involved within theContinue reading ““RPR”, “IMCA” and “Paralegal” – what are these roles?”

Unwanted amputation and its likely aftermath

By Monica Young, 23 December 2020 Editorial note: You can listen to Nageena Khalique QC, counsel for P talking about this case in a YouTube video. Her account of this case lasts for about four minutes starting at 18:50 minutes into the recording. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ML-PDLIkrSc&feature=emb_logo The hearing that I attended on Thursday 17th December 2020 (Case: 13693467 beforeContinue reading “Unwanted amputation and its likely aftermath”

An inappropriate placement and Article 8 rights

By Beverley Clough, 21 December 2020 After following the Open Justice Court of Protection Project with interest since it was launched in June 2020, I was really pleased to be able (finally!) to attend a hearing on Friday 18th December 2020. The hearing I observed  (COP 13462068 Re ‘LW’, before Mr Justice Hayden)  follows on from a judgmentContinue reading “An inappropriate placement and Article 8 rights”

Autoerotic asphyxiation: capacity and best interests

This case centred around whether an individual, let’s call him ‘James’, had capacity to decide whether or not to engage in a sexual activity known as autoerotic asphyxiation (AEA), the practice of strangling or suffocating oneself during masturbation to heighten sexual arousal. The question of capacity also concerned James’ engagement with other individuals on the internet.

Waiving anonymity to promote care home visiting rights

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.

A parent’s reflection on “Michael” – a young man with complex needs and no suitable placement

I have been my son’s care coordinator for many years. In our experience there is little or no communication between agencies. Even though I worked in health and social care services for years, I found that the system is like a maze and sourcing every provision has been a battle. Young people fall through the net. I hope adult services offer Michael the chance of stability and safety in his life and suggest that the next care coordinator ensures that his voice is heard and his family are involved.

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”.