Consolidated proceedings involving an annual review of the continued deprivation of liberty of CD (in operation since 2019) and health and welfare application by his mother, AB The issues behind the applications are summarised by HHJ Baddeley at [6]:
i) Where should CD live and receive care and support: should he remain at EF [the current placement] with care provided by KL [the current provider] or should he move to South West England to live initially with AB (with support through direct payments funding a personal assistant or assistants). ii) If CD remains living in South Yorkshire what should the contact arrangements be with AB, both in South Yorkshire and in South West England. iii) Should a health and welfare deputy be appointed for CD. After an extensive review of the evidence and the relevant law, the judge finds there was a gap between the attitude to risk between AB and the carers: the latter being more risk averse while AB feels her son can achieve much more. While he finds the carers can do more to encourage CD, he finds the risk to CD in AB's plan to move him to the South West are not in his best interests though he does relax the restrictions on AB's contact with her son. Further he decides this is a rare case when the court should appoint a deputy, funded by the local authority. Read the judgment on Bailii Comments are closed.
|
Case summaries on every Court of Protection case & other relevant decisions with links to the full judgment where available.
Support the Hub
This site is free to access but if you find it useful then please consider a contribution by way of support for our work. Click here to contribute. Sign up for our free email alertWe do not share your details with any third parties and you can unsubscribe at any time
More from Bath PublishingBrowseCategories
All
Archives
October 2024
|
This site is published by Bath Publishing Limited
www.bathpublishing.com Manage your email preferences Read the Bath Publishing Privacy Policy |