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 mother currently has quarterly supervised contact for two hours each session and has done so since that regime was approved by Mr Justice Wood in 2012 and confirmed by Mostyn J in 2016. She was seeking that contact should be increased to fortnightly; that it should be unsupervised; and that it should take place in her own home.
In refusing to give the mother permission to appeal, Mostyn J notes that the fact that D had reached the age of majority was irrelevant stating at 
"I do not agree that because this arbitrary chronological threshold has been passed that D is entitled to be afforded more respect to his right to autonomy than prevailed in the period leading up to his 18th birthday."
Instead his task was to decide whether there is a “good arguable case has been shown that it is in his best interests for there to be a full welfare investigation of the current contact arrangements” using the same threshold as would be applied for judicial review. He decides there is not as the evidence filed clearly shows that D expresses worry to his carers prior to contact visits taking place and that he exhibits distressed behaviour prior to and after such visits. Should the permission application be granted he could foresee “the potential for much stress and unhappiness not only for D but also for his family members”
Read the full judgment on Bailii.
Case summaries on every Court of Protection case & other relevant decisions with links to the full judgment where available.
Sign up for our free email alert
We do not share your details with any third parties and you can unsubscribe at any time
Useful books from Bath Publishing