Judgment regarding an application to authorise the Trust to deliver MB's child by Caesarian section if necessary and whether she should be informed of the local authority's application for an interim care order.
MB lived alone, had little in the way of medical history and no history of mental health problems. The father of her child was unknown. She reported to hospital with abdominal pain and vaginal bleeding but at the same time claimed to be hearing voices. Further investigation led her to be detained under s2 of the MHA. She attempted to abscond twice after becoming increasingly chaotic and aggressive though she responded to medication. The expert called into assess capacity concluded MB had fluctuating capacity and the risk was that she may lose that capacity during labour.
Roberts J, after analysing the decision of Hayden J in Guys, concludes that MB lacks capacity so while MB may have lucid moments before the birth it was not necessary to make anticipatory declarations. She also accepts the Trust's birth plan, which seemingly reflected MB's wishes, and any surgical intervention would be lawful if that plan was followed. She also has to decide whether MB should be told of the local authority's intention to apply for an interim care order. Although this engages MB's Art 8 rights at  Roberts J decides that she should not be told as this was necessary and proportionate to reduce the risk of further trauma for MB.
Read the judgment on the National Archives
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 alert
We do not share your details with any third parties and you can unsubscribe at any time
More from Bath Publishing