Landmark High Court Case Balances Autonomy and Protection for Individual with Autism & Cognitive Impairments

Citation: [2023] EWHC 3102 (Fam)
Judgment on


In the case of A Local Authority v KP & Anor [2023] EWHC 3102 (Fam), the High Court of Justice examines complex issues surrounding the capacity and best interests of an 18-year-old individual, KP, with cognitive impairments and autism. This landmark decision addresses the delicate balance between protecting vulnerable adults and respecting their autonomy, especially when they reside with a person who poses potential risks to their well-being.

Key Facts

KP, who has been diagnosed with Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and dyslexia, presents with an IQ in the “Extremely Low” range. KP’s vulnerabilities are compounded by her living arrangement with her mother, J, and J’s partner, D, who is a registered sex offender. The Local Authority, suspecting that D may place KP at risk of sexual exploitation, sought court intervention to either move KP to safer accommodation or prohibit D from living with her. Historically, KP’s removal from the family home had led to destabilizing effects, including self-harming and suicide attempts. At the time of the hearing, no alternative accommodation had been proposed, thus creating a dilemma for the court.

The central legal principles hinged upon the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA), specifically the decision-specific test set out in Section 2(1), detailing that a person lacks capacity if they are unable to make a decision due to an impairment of the mind or brain. Two main capacities were under scrutiny: the capacity to make decisions about residing with D and about contact with D.

In line with Section 1(3) MCA, the judgment also emphasizes that all practicable steps should be taken to help KP make her own decisions before deeming her to lack capacity. In this instance, the court identifies further assessment and targeted educational interventions as potential avenues to enable KP to gain sufficient understanding of the risks D may pose.

In its judgment, the court also considers the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court to protect vulnerable adults. The principle from PC & Anor v City of York Council [2013] EWCA Civ 478 is invoked, reinforcing that relevant information for capacity assessments includes risks specific to individuals like D.

Furthermore, the court acknowledges the MCA’s provision for interim orders based on reasonable belief rather than conclusive findings, as per Section 48 MCA and the potential use of injunctive relief under the Court of Protection’s authority derived from cases like Re SF (Injunctive Relief) [2020] EWCOP 19 and Re G (Court of Protection: Injunction) [2022] EWCA Civ 1312.


The court decides it is premature to declare KP lacks the capacity to make decisions about her living arrangements and contact with D without first exploring all possible support to aid her in decision-making. Interim declarations under Section 48 MCA that KP lacks capacity are issued while planning for further assessment.

The court concludes that the only current viable option is for KP to remain living in J’s household. It rules that KP’s best interest, at this moment, includes continuing her job and maintaining stability, and mandates a Local Authority representative to check on her weekly.

Measures are outlined to ensure KP’s safety, including weekly meetings with a Local Authority representative and provisions for KP, J, and D to cooperate with these arrangements.

D is added as a party to the proceedings, ensuring any future consideration of an order to exclude him from the home will be made with due process.

Postscript information about KP’s decision to leave the family home of her own accord and her subsequent revelations about D further bolster the judgment’s tailored approach to KP’s evolving circumstances.


The High Court’s judgment in A Local Authority v KP & Anor [2023] EWHC 3102 (Fam) elucidates the application of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to cases involving individuals with cognitive impairments and complex family dynamics. It underscores the necessity for a nuanced understanding of capacity, particularly where fluctuating capacity and external influences may compromise the individual’s decision-making process. By mandating a close monitoring arrangement and outlining a systematic approach to assist KP in developing the ability to understand the risks posed by D, the court balances KP’s safety, well-being, and personal freedom. This case reaffirms the law’s adaptability to serve the best interests of vulnerable individuals within the existing legal framework.

Related Summaries