Best interests judgment involving two P's, a married couple now both diagnosed with dementia, and where there are concerns over contact MA and AA have been married for 63 years. They previously lived at home together but as their illnesses progressed concerns arose about their ability to manage at home. They moved to the same room at placement 1 but MA was later moved to another floor and contact with AA was stopped. Placement 1 was unable to provide the care MA required so she was moved to placement 2 which was a specialist unit able to deal with her needs. Attempts at phone contact and video contact failed so the judge had to decide on future care and residence, whether there should be any further attempts at contact and whether cessation of contact with is a breach of their Article 8 rights. It was accepted that both MA and AA lacked capacity.
Judge Simpson notes the relevant case law including HH v Hywel Dda University Health Board & Ors [2023] EWCOP 18 another case involving a 'two P situation' in which Francis J emphasised a holistic approach. He then sets out the evidence around the breakdown of contact, which was partly due to MA's erratic behaviour during face to face contact and AA's lack of interest in video meetings. He identifies the question as being whether AA should move placement to a sister home of MA's current placement (placement 3) to be nearer to her, however he concludes AA would be unsettled by the move. Then at [62] he states 'it is universally accepted that the starting point in this matter is that wherever possible, a husband and wife should have contact with each other' but the evidence shows, sadly, AA no longer recognises MA. Given this analysis, he decides at [80] he had 'not found any evidence that the respondents have acted in a way which is disproportionate and incompatible with a Convention right.' Two helpful balance sheet tables set out the pros and cons underpinning the judge's decision. 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
January 2025
|
This site is published by Bath Publishing Limited
www.bathpublishing.com Manage your email preferences Read the Bath Publishing Privacy Policy |