Wakefield Metropolitan District Council v FH & Ors
[2024] EWHC 830 (Fam)
Norfolk County Council v CA & Ors
10 October 2024
[2024] EWCOP 64 (T3)
Court of Protection
A daughter was accused of abusing her elderly mother. A judge found the daughter had abused her mother and then decided whether the mother was able to make decisions for herself. The mother could make some decisions but not others, so the judge made rules to keep the mother safe from her daughter, even though the mother wanted to be with her daughter.
Key Facts
- •Norfolk County Council (NCC) applied for orders under sections 16 and 22 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court concerning CA (79), who has dementia.
- •Allegations of coercive control and assault were made against CA's daughter (DA) and ex-husband (EA).
- •A fact-finding hearing was conducted, resulting in findings that several allegations against DA and EA were proven.
- •The court addressed CA's capacity to make decisions regarding care, contact, and LPAs.
- •The court considered CA's best interests and the use of the inherent jurisdiction to protect her.
Legal Principles
Burden of proof in Court of Protection cases is on the applicant; standard of proof is the balance of probabilities.
Court of Protection case law
Lucas direction on assessing truthfulness of witness testimony; lies can be told for various reasons.
R v Lucas [1982] QB 720; R v Middleton [2000] TLR 293; Re H-C (Children) [2016] EWCA Civ 139; Wakefield Metropolitan District Council v R & Others [2019] EWHC 3581 (Fam)
Definition of incapacity under sections 2 and 3 of the MCA 2005.
Mental Capacity Act 2005
Principles for determining capacity under the MCA 2005 (decision-specific, presumption of capacity, etc.).
MCA 2005 and case law
Best interests principles under section 4 of the MCA 2005 (considering wishes, feelings, beliefs, values etc.).
Mental Capacity Act 2005
High Court's inherent jurisdiction to protect vulnerable adults with capacity.
Parens patriae jurisdiction and case law (e.g., Re SA [2005] EWHC 2942 (Fam))
Outcomes
Several allegations against DA and EA were proven on the balance of probabilities.
Based on evidence from witnesses, records, and consideration of the Lucas direction.
CA lacks capacity to conduct proceedings, make decisions about care, and manage property and affairs.
Based on Dr Barker's expert evidence and analysis of CA's abilities under the MCA 2005.
CA has capacity to decide on contact with others and to make/revoke the health and welfare LPA.
Based on Dr Barker's expert evidence; Court found that although CA cannot recall specific instances of abuse, she is aware of DA's behaviour and can weigh the risks and benefits of contact.
Inherent jurisdiction used to impose supervised contact between CA and DA/EA and to impose an injunction on DA's use of the LPA.
To protect CA from harm given her vulnerability despite having capacity to decide on contact; interference with Article 8 rights justified to protect CA from harm.
Injunction granted with conditions to protect CA, including restrictions on DA's actions.
To safeguard CA from further abuse and ensure her safety, whilst respecting her capacity to make certain decisions.