A Local Authority v LD & Anor.
[2023] EWHC 1258 (Fam)
HC, Re
25 April 2024
[2024] EWCOP 24
Court of Protection
A young woman with mental health problems needed a new home. The court decided she might not be able to make that decision herself, but forcing her to move to a specific new home could make her worse. So, the judge said she can go back to live with her dad temporarily if she doesn't want the new place, but professionals need to check in on her. The new home is allowed to restrict her freedom, but only if she's happy to be there.
Key Facts
- •HC, a 27-year-old woman with a history of anorexia and mental health difficulties, needs a new care placement.
- •Her current placement, K House, gave notice of termination.
- •Leicester City Council and the ICB seek declarations that HC lacks capacity to decide where to live and receive care and that a move to D House is in her best interests.
- •HC's father, RC, opposes the move and believes HC needs trauma therapy.
- •There is a complex history of disagreements between RC, HC, and statutory bodies regarding HC's care.
- •HC's LPA for health and welfare has been suspended.
- •An urgent application was made due to the imminent termination of HC's placement at K House.
Legal Principles
Determining whether there is reason to believe P lacks capacity under s.48 MCA 2005.
DP (By His Accredited Legal Representative) v London Borough of Hillingdon [2020] COPLR 769 and A Local Authority v LD and RD [2023] EWHC 1258 (Fam)
Best interests determination under s.48(c) MCA 2005.
Mental Capacity Act 2005
Authorisation of deprivation of liberty under MCA 2005.
Mental Capacity Act 2005
Outcomes
The court finds there is reason to believe HC lacks capacity under s.48 MCA 2005 to decide where to live and receive care.
HC's diagnosed mental disorders, inability to use or weigh information, influence from RC, and distress related to the potential move to D House.
The court refuses to order a forced move to D House.
The potential for increased distress and self-harm, the low likelihood of HC settling in willingly, and concerns about using physical restraint.
The court consents to HC moving home to live with RC temporarily if she does not agree to move to D House.
Avoiding forced move and potential harm, but with provisions for professional access to HC.
The court authorises HC's deprivation of liberty at D House only if she agrees to move there, with the authorisation ending if she wishes to return home.
D House is a locked facility, requiring substitute consent for a deprivation of liberty. However, forced confinement is not appropriate given the concerns about HC's mental health.