The court had to decide whether the P, who was about to be discharged from a neuro-rehabilitation unit, should live in the marital home or a residential care home. A marital home trial was agreed.

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.

​​The court had to decide whether the P had capacity to decide where he resides, the care he receives, to have contact with others and access to the internet and social media. The court concluded that he did have capacity to make those decisions.

Further decision following a court ruling that the P should not leave the care home to live with his daughter.

​The court had to decide if the P has capacity to make the decision as to whether she should continue to live in residential care or return to live in her own flat with a care package.

​Proceedings relating to the P were adjourned for several months because of the Covid-19 pandemic which meant that he could not return to his habitual residence in Spain.

The court had to decide where the P should live as his foster placement was coming to an end.

P appeal against a range of orders relating to her use of social media and consent to sexual relations. LA's cross-appeal against a decision that the P had capacity to decide on where she lived. Appeal dismissed, cross-appeal allowed.

​This case concerned the issues of where the Patient should live and who she should see.

​The Court made final orders providing for the Patient's continued residence at Address 2, with arrangements for contact with her mother defined.

The Patient, NB, who is autistic, had resided at Address 1 until her very challenging behaviour there led to her being served notice to move out. She then moved to Address 2. Her mother VW had made applications for shared care such that NB could spend time living in the family home and Address 2. The applications were dismissed. The Local Authority and the Official Solicitor were agreed that the court should be invited to make final orders providing for NB's continued residence at Address 2 (she told the court she wanted to move back to Address 1), with arrangements for contact with VW defined, in particular to restrict VW's direct contact with NB to fortnightly on an agreed and predictable day of the week for a specified period so as to give NB the best chance of settling into her new home.
​
The court concluded that NB's stated wishes in respect of where she lives at present cannot be given decisive weight. Her Litigation Friend took the same view. It is in NB's best interests to continue living at Address 2. As to contact with VW, the court said that it is necessary and proportionate that direct contact between them should be reduced to fortnightly and in accordance with a planned timetable, as the Applicant Local Authority sought.

Read the full text of the judgment on Bailii