|
Judgment concerning PB who has suffered a severe brain haemorrhage, lacks capacity and is in a care home and what level of contact she should have with her husband.
Application by a daughter (WU), as representative for other family members, seeking orders that their mother (BU) lacks capacity to make decisions about her contact, restricting contact with another man and for a forced marriage protection order to be put in place.
The court made declarations that the P lacks capacity to make decisions regarding foreign travel, contact with his family and others and social media and internet usage.
Appeal by the OS against a ruling which supported the health and welfare deputy's decision that the P's parents did not have a reasonable excuse to leave their homes to provide care to the P, pursuant to regulation 6(2)(d) of the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020. Appeal allowed.
Application in relation to the P's capacity to decide where she should live and whether she should continue to have contact with her abusive partner.
There was a dispute as to whether the conclusions of a second independent expert psychiatrist should be accepted, and final declarations made in accordance with those conclusions.
Application by a mother, who is subject to a civil restraint order, for permission to make a substantive application concerning contact with D, her 20 year-old son who is severely impaired by autism and who is cared for by his father and stepmother. Application refused.
The court was required to make a range of capacity decisions in relation to the P's capacity to litigate in the proceedings, to manage her property and affairs, to decide where she resides, to decide on her package of care, to decide with who she has contact, to use the internet and communicate by social media and to consent to sexual relations.
The court was required to make final capacity declarations on the P's residence, contact (with family and others), his care arrangements, his property and financial affairs, his capacity to consent to sexual relations, and his internet and social media use. This judgment in particular focused on the P's access to social media and the risks that posed to him and to others.
The LA was seeking orders to restrict the husband's contact with the P. The court declined to make the orders sought.
|
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 PublishingBrowse |
RSS Feed
|
This site is published by Bath Publishing Limited
www.bathpublishing.com Manage your email preferences Read the Bath Publishing Privacy Policy |