MA v A Local Authority & Ors
[2024] EWCOP 48 (T2)
MA & Anor, Re
8 December 2023
[2023] EWCOP 65
Court of Protection
An elderly couple with dementia were separated because one partner's behaviour was causing problems. The court decided, after carefully considering their best interests, that it's best for them to have no contact for now, to avoid upsetting them. This will be reviewed in a few months.
Key Facts
- •MA (84) and AA (89), married for 63 years, both have dementia.
- •MA has advanced dementia and challenging behaviours; AA's dementia is more advanced but he is compliant.
- •They were initially placed together but separated due to MA's care needs and challenging behaviours.
- •A COP9 application sought to end all contact between them due to distress and risk.
- •MA strongly opposes the cessation of contact; AA's position is to remain at his current placement and have no contact, subject to review.
Legal Principles
Best Interests
Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005), sections 1, 4, 4A, 16, 21A
Deprivation of Liberty
MCA 2005, section 4A, Schedule A1
Article 8 ECHR (right to respect for private and family life)
European Convention on Human Rights, Article 8
Care Act 2014, section 1(1) (duty to promote wellbeing)
Care Act 2014
Balancing best interests in two-person cases
HH v Hywel Dda University Health Board & Ors [2023] EWCOP 18
Best interests criteria
Aintree University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v James and others [2013] UKSC 67
Court's jurisdiction limited to available options
N v ACCG and Others [2017] UKSC 22
Factors of magnetic importance
ITW v Z. M and Various Charities [2009] EWHC 2525 (Fam)
Court's power to grant declaratory relief
MCA 2005, section 15
Outcomes
MA and AA should remain in their current placements.
Balancing their best interests, considering the lack of available options and the significant distress caused by contact attempts.
All contact between MA and AA should cease.
The evidence shows that neither benefits from any form of contact, and that attempts at contact cause significant distress to both. MA's current wishes and feelings are not in favor of contact, and AA does not recognize MA.
No declaration of Article 8 breach.
The court found the decision to cease contact was necessary and proportionate to protect MA's best interests and complied with the Care Act 2014.