|
Judgment concerning a 17 year old who had been detained under s2 of the MHA but was deprived of her liberty when that authority lapsed.
Application to determine whether DY has capacity to decide on his care and support arrangements in circumstances where his sexual behaviour may pose a threat to the public and current authorisation for deprivation of liberty is due to expire .
Judgment giving reasons for why the judge removed an application for the deprivation of liberty of a 17 year old from the streamlined procedure. Although the matter was eventually settled by consent, the judgment has been published to provide guidance on when the streamlined procedure may be appropriate.
Appeal raising an “important question about how supervisory bodies should evidence their scrutiny of requests for authorisation of deprivation of liberty”
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.
The court had to make decisions in relation to whether the P had capacity to make decisions about his engagement in AEA and in relation to his contact with people he meets online.
Application by the P's mother for the court to recognise Letters of Guardianship granted by a US court, which confer authority on the mother to make decisions in respect of the P's person, and to determine a challenge to the standard authorisation in respect of deprivation of liberty in the P's current living arrangements by returning her to the care of her mother. The application for recognition of Letters of Guardianship was refused on the grounds of public policy and the challenge to the current authorisation was dismissed.
Appeal against a court decision that the P lacked capacity to make decisions about his residence and care. The appeal was allowed.
The court had to decide if the P, who lives in a flat in supported accommodation, was being deprived of her liberty. The court ruled that she was.
|
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 |