- FW systematically isolated TP from her family, professionals, friends and neighbours by encouraging her to disengage with all services she had in place. It is the local authority's view that P did not have the capacity to make the decisions to cancel the services and engagement that she did but that she was instructed to do so by FW.
- FW has financially exploited TP and depleted the monies that she had in the bank.
- FW has behaved in a manner that is controlling and coercive towards TP.
- FW's living arrangements for TP are inappropriate. FW is an unrelated male who carries out intimate caring tasks for TP, such as helping her out of the bath, that there is no door to the bathroom in the home to afford TP privacy when using the toilet or the bath and to preserve her dignity in this area, and that there was no door between FW and TP's bedrooms.
This case demonstrates the difficulties with balancing P’s wishes and feelings when they have been strongly expressed. The court referred to the decision of Peter Jackson J, in Wye Valley NHS Trust v B  EWCOP 60, that although P’s wishes and feelings may be a significant factor they may not be determinative of the case. A finding of lack of capacity to make decisions does not switch off the P’s rights and freedoms. This case also illustrates the difficulty in balancing the need to protect the P from harm against the harm caused by the protection. The proposal in this case was not the least restrictive placement for P but the protection from harm outweighed the harm caused by the protection.
There were three judgments in this case and the court in the number two judgment deals with the law and process of establishing whether someone lacks capacity to make decisions, by reviewing and setting out recent case law on this issue.
Read the full text of the judgment on Bailii