This case concerns a young women aged 20 years (‘P’) and the question to be determined was whether the decisions that she had made were as a result of lack of capacity, or her adolescent life, or both. The local authority (‘LA’) made an application for declarations as to P’s capacity to:
• Choose her residence;
• Make contact with others;
• Deal with her care;
• Litigate these proceedings.
P is on the autistic spectrum with a diagnosis of Asperger’s Syndrome, and had a borderline learning disability.
P resides at home with her mother (‘X’) but aspires to living independently.
The court received evidence from P’s social worker and a consultant developmental psychiatrist, along with written evidence.
X opposes the LA’s application. After hearing P’s evidence and it being tested the official solicitor (‘OS’) on behalf of P invited the court to conclude that the LA has failed to prove its case.
The LA’s concerns were:
The court examined at length the issue of capacity and the recent judgment of MacDonald J in Kings College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust v C and V  EWCOP 80 at paragraphs 24-39, of which the court broadly agreed. The court identified key principles which had governed its approach to this case:
The court did not grant the declarations.
This was a difficult decision for the court as it recognised that P was a vulnerable young person and it would be easy for the court to take a ‘paternalistic’ approach but that this would be ‘unprincipled’ and ‘wrong’.
The court disagreed with the expert in this case and reminded itself of the differing roles - the expert advises and the court decides. The difficulty in this case was that the expert’s report was a year out of date and although it may have been correct about P’s capacity at the time, the evidence of P since then demonstrated that she had made some decisions that indicated a sufficient ability to weigh up the risks and gain an insight into the consequences of her choices.
This case illustrates the difficulty in assessing a vulnerable young adult and balancing the autonomy of that young adult to ‘make unwise decisions, provided that they have the capacity to decide’ (PC v City of York).
Read the full text of the judgment on Bailii
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