Untenable and unsafe: A trial of living in the community breaks down

So, Mr G will return to the safety of residential care, where he will no doubt continue to rage against his incarceration, but there will be a suitable infrastructure to help him manage his precarious health condition. The question one is left with, of course, is, as Munby J famously said: “What good is making someone safer if it merely makes them miserable?”

A mother abroad and a family dispute: Part 3

By Kristy Regan, 6th January 2022 This long-running case (COP 13677853) concerns Mrs P, an 80+ year old widow who’s been living in a European country at an unknown address with one of her daughters, “Kim” (all names are pseudonyms), a litigant in person.   The applicant is Mrs P’s other daughter, “Louise” (represented by Sarah Haren  of 5 StoneContinue reading “A mother abroad and a family dispute: Part 3”

Disputes about COVID vaccination should be rapidly referred to the Court

“at First Avenue House – and I’ve checked with the senior judge – if an application comes in concerning a dispute about vaccination, one of our technical experts will deal with it, and it will be referred to a judge quickly.  The arrangements in the regional hub courts are similar – the court staff are alert to the need to progress vaccination applications quickly” (DJ Mullins)

“At loggerheads”: Habitual residence, best interests and life-sustaining treatment

loggerheads”, but also that the family was effectively “on a different page” about how serious treatment decisions are made in a patient’s best interests, and how the Court of Protection works to ensure that.

Family witnesses in court: Four reflections on Re AH (A Rehearing)

Suggesting that the family is lacking in objectivity because they are in some way psychologically compromised serves the purpose of undermining and discrediting their evidence.  This was not necessary to powerfully argue the Trust’s case that ongoing life-sustaining treatment is not in AH’s best interests. The medical evidence stood alone.

Elective caesarean in her best interests

Despite guidance concerning applications for court-sanctioned interventions in childbirth, it’s common for cases to come before the court (as here) where women are within 4 weeks of their expected delivery, and judges regularly express concern that they are having to make decisions about childbirth for women close to (or even after) their due dates. 

Approving a conveyancing plan to move P to residential care

The need for an urgent hearing was because the house that P had been living in had been sold at auction and completion of the sale was due the following week (on 18th November). The house needed to be cleared of furniture and effects before then.  Additionally, P needed to vacate the property and live elsewhere.

Naming a putative ‘expert’ in a COVID vaccination case: A letter to the judge

Videos posted by Dr Rogers online include assertions that masks are ineffective and that it is not “a good thing to do” to have a vaccine unless you are very elderly or vulnerable. 

Last-minute vacated hearings in the Court of Protection

By David York, 8th November 2021 For many public observers in the Court of Protection, it will be a familiar experience to request access to a hearing, only to get an email response saying that the hearing has been vacated or adjourned.   This leaves members of the public wondering what actually happened to that caseContinue reading “Last-minute vacated hearings in the Court of Protection”

Reflections on Disability and Reproductive Justice in a court hearing

P’s awake while giving birth, adding layers of complexity to what could be considered P’s best interests because she raised the importance to her of bonding and the symbiotic relationship between mother and baby. To her, being awake and with her partner are fundamental to establishing that relationship. Without her ability to participate, how could the court have recognised this?