‘Micro-management’ or appropriate case management by the court for a ‘dangerous young man’?

Framing the issues around ED being a ‘dangerous young man’ served no purpose here in my view, other than to cast him in a pejorative light. I can’t see much difference between this, and the (regular, in my experience) casting of all of someone’s actions and ‘behaviours’ being attributed to their ‘personality’ – usually in the context of the professional concerned looking for a way out of having to think more about how they might need to adapt in order to help.

“She is religious and she is a fighter”: Three perspectives on best interests decision-making in the Court of Protection from ‘Compassion in Dying’

By Jemma Woodley, Zach Moss and Upeka de Silva, 23rd June 2022 Editorial Note: The judgment has now been published: Imperial Healthcare NHS Trust v C & Ors [2022] EWCOP 28 We are three people who work for Compassion in Dying, a national charity that supports people to make their own decisions about end-of-life care inContinue reading ““She is religious and she is a fighter”: Three perspectives on best interests decision-making in the Court of Protection from ‘Compassion in Dying’”

Resisting Care: An unsuccessful s.21A challenge from a ‘feisty’ 94-year-old

By Celia Kitzinger, 19 June 2022 It was a week after the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee celebrations (this becomes relevant later!) and District Judge Searl was making a decision about a 94-year-old woman (“Hattie”) who lives in a care home but wants to return to her own home.   The law It was a challenge under s.21A ofContinue reading “Resisting Care: An unsuccessful s.21A challenge from a ‘feisty’ 94-year-old”

Happy Second Birthday to the Open Justice Court of Protection Project

By Celia Kitzinger, Gill Loomes-Quinn, Claire Martin and Kirsty Stuart, 15th June 2022 It’s two years ago today since two of us (Celia and Gill) launched the Open Justice Court of Protection Project, at the beginning of the pandemic. It was born of our passionate belief that “publicity is the very soul of justice” atContinue reading “Happy Second Birthday to the Open Justice Court of Protection Project”

Making Disabled Lives Visible – Reflections Two Years On

By Gill Loomes-Quinn, 13th June 2022 One of the many challenging aspects of being disabled in our society is the isolation that comes from those around you being ignorant of, and failing to comprehend, the ways in which living with impairment(s) in a disabling society impact the life of a disabled person. My own experiencesContinue reading “Making Disabled Lives Visible – Reflections Two Years On”

When family members apply to become parties: A hidden and “private” (but not sinister and secret) hearing

Many people who contact the Open Justice Court of Protection Project believe that the court is deliberately obstructive of open justice.  I understand why it can feel like that.
It really isn’t the case that the lists are deliberately designed to discourage us from observing hearings.  It’s just that – very often – they have that effect. Having attended this hidden and “private” hearing, I can’t detect any reason why anyone would have sought to exclude me: there was nothing ‘secret’ or ‘sinister’ about it at all.

Medical treatment, undue influence and delayed puberty: A baffling case

By Celia Kitzinger and Claire Martin, 2nd May 2022 The protected party at the centre of the case is a woman in her early twenties who has not experienced puberty, because she has not been provided with the recommended medical treatment for her “primary ovarian failure”. She has diagnoses of “mild learning disability” and “autismContinue reading “Medical treatment, undue influence and delayed puberty: A baffling case”

More on Mr M: Medical recommendations, still awaiting discharge and final hearing plans

By Claire Martin, 12th April 2022 Mr M is still in hospital. He has now been there for 40 days.  He was originally taken to hospital under court order for assessment of his ulcerated legs, to enable medical recommendations to be made. We have previously blogged about this case, here, here and here. At this hearing[1] (12 noon, Friday 8th AprilContinue reading “More on Mr M: Medical recommendations, still awaiting discharge and final hearing plans”

Withdrawing treatment after brain-stem death: A case in the Family Division

Today I watched a hearing about whether or not a woman in her 40s is dead. She was declared dead at 11.45 on Thursday 10 March 2022, following brain stem death testing. The reason the doctors have continued to treat the patient and the reason the Trust has applied to court is that the family has opposed withdrawal of ventilation (and other treatments) and has asked for a private second opinion.    

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.