DY (Capacity), Re
[2024] EWCOP 4
Re RK (Capacity: Contact: Inherent Jurisdiction)
18 August 2023
[2023] EWCOP 37
Court of Protection
A family fought with their daughter's care home. The judge decided the daughter could choose who she sees, that the care home didn't force her to stay away from her family, and that the family should work with the care home to help them reconnect.
Key Facts
- •R is a 30-year-old woman with Down's Syndrome, a moderate to severe learning disability, and partial sight.
- •R resides in supported living accommodation (Castle Hill).
- •A dispute exists between R's family and Signia (her care provider) regarding R's care and contact with her family.
- •Allegations of financial mismanagement and undue influence against Signia were made by R's family.
- •R's family initiated legal proceedings to determine R's capacity to make decisions about contact and to establish a supportive framework for contact.
- •R's family and Signia engaged in mediation and the Talking Project, but these attempts were largely unsuccessful.
- •The court considered R's capacity to make decisions about contact, revoke Lasting Powers of Attorney (LPAs), and the application of the inherent jurisdiction.
Legal Principles
Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005): Presumption of capacity, inability to make a decision due to impairment, and the single test for capacity.
MCA 2005, sections 1(2), 1(3), 1(4), 2, 3
Inherent jurisdiction: The court's power to intervene in the case of vulnerable adults whose ability to make decisions has been compromised by factors other than mental incapacity (constraint, coercion, undue influence).
Re SA (Vulnerable Adult with capacity: Marriage) [2005] EWHC 2942 (Fam), DL v A Local Authority & others [2012] EWCA Civ 253
Court of Protection Rules 2017 (COPR 2017): Duty to manage cases efficiently and proportionately.
COPR 2017, rule 1.3, rule 3
Outcomes
R lacks capacity to revoke the LPAs.
R's limited understanding of LPAs and her cognitive impairments.
R has capacity to make decisions about contact with her family.
Dr. McKay's assessment demonstrated R's understanding, ability to weigh information, and communication skills, despite her ambivalence and past hurt.
The application under the inherent jurisdiction is refused.
Insufficient evidence to demonstrate undue influence or coercion by Signia staff; R's decisions have been demonstrably free, despite her ambivalence.
Signia will remain as R's care provider.
Changing providers would likely be counterproductive, causing distress and reinforcing R's belief that her parents control her life. Investigations have not found wrongdoing by Signia.