A, Re (Covert Medication: Residence) [2024] EWCOP 19

Best interests judgment concerning a possible move for A to live with her mother after she was deprived of her liberty and given medication covertly. 

It was common ground that A lacked capacity and until 2019, A lived at home with her mother, B. Previous orders had seen A removed from her mother’s care against the wishes of both of them, and she now resides in Placement A and has only indirect, telephone contact with her mother. During the placement she had been given HRT covertly to induce puberty as she refused to take it overtly. (see Re A (Covert Medication: Closed Proceedings) [2022] EWCOP 44)

This judgment concerns the future residence of A, which is necessarily bound up with the continuation or cessation of her covert medication. After an extensive review of the relevant law and the evidence Poole J analyses the issues around covert medication from [47] and the 'enmeshed' relationship with her mother, B, from [68] which is critical to whether A can return home. Although he states at [80] 'the relationship between A and B is deeply troubling and has caused significant harm to A' that relationship with B and her grandmother 'is the family life that A knows and to which she strongly wants to return.' In this light he declares A's best interests were for: A to return home; for the covert medication to cease; A to be informed that she has been covertly administered HRT and that it has been of benefit to her health; to allow B to try to persuade A to take HRT voluntarily and; for support to A to be provided to her in the community, whilst she is living at home. [82]  

Acknowledging his decision was at odds with the LA, Trust and OS he goes on, at [84] to say

"I acknowledge the risk that my determination of A's best interests will result in her returning home to an unhealthy relationship and will expose her to the harmful consequences of ceasing HRT. However, those risks are outweighed by the benefits of ending the deprivation of A's liberty and the serious interference with her Art 8 rights, and of avoiding the risk of an unmanaged disclosure to her of the covert administration of HRT."

Read the judgment on Bailii