Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Latest articles
CB v EB [2020] EWFC 72
(Family Court, Mostyn J, 16 November 2020)Financial Remedies – Consent order – Application for set aside – Property values left husband with lower sums than anticipated – FPR...
No right (as yet) to be married legally in a humanist ceremony: R (on the application of Harrison and others) v Secretary of State for Justice [2020] EWHC 2096 (Admin)
Mary Welstead, CAP Fellow, Harvard Law School, Visiting Professor in Family Law, University of BuckinghamIn July 2020, six humanist couples brought an application for judicial review on the...
Controlling and coercive behaviour is gender and colour blind but how are courts meeting the challenge to protect victims
Maryam Syed, 7BRExamining the most recent caselaw in both family and criminal law jurisdictions this article discusses the prominent and still newly emerging issue of controlling and coercive domestic...
Roma families face disadvantage in child protection proceedings
Mary Marvel, Law for LifeWe have all become familiar with the discussion about structural racism in the UK, thanks to the excellent work of the Black Lives Matter movement. But it is less recognised...
The ‘Bank of Mum and Dad’ – obligations and scope for change
Helen Brander, Pump Court ChambersQuite unusually, two judgments of the High Court in 2020 have considered financial provision for adult children and when and how applications can be made. They come...
View all articles

VULNERABLE ADULT/ WELFARE: G v E (by his litigation friend, the Official Solicitor), Manchester City Council and F

Sep 29, 2018, 17:36 PM
Slug : 11102010GE
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Nov 19, 2010, 03:35 AM
Article ID : 93119

(Court of Protection; Baker J; 11 October 2010)

A young adult was placed with foster carers as child. Concerns about some comments by the vulnerable adult led to a safeguarding referral, during which the vulnerable adult was removed from the carer and placed in a residential unit.  A safeguarding investigation proved inconclusive.  

The judge reviewed the Mental Capacity Act 2005 as amended and concluded that adult was undoubtedly being deprived of liberty. The judge decided that the adult should not to be returned to the carer in interim, but later, however, ordered the return of the adult to the carer.

An application was made for the appointment of the carer and sister as deputies for personal welfare and an application was made by the sister to act as litigation friend in place of the Official Solicitor. The application for appointment deputies was refused and complaints against the Official Solicitor were rejected. It was not necessary for the adult's carer and sister to be appointed deputies in order for the carer role to be fulfilled.  Routine decisions could be taken by the carer, including decisions about holidays and respite care; decisions about education were to be taken collaboratively, and; decisions about medical care were to be taken by treating clinicians in consultation with the carer and sister.  Any disagreement would lead to an application to the Court of Protection. 


Family Law Reports

Family Law Reports are relied upon by the judiciary, barristers and solicitors and the reports are cited daily in court and in judgments.

They contain verbatim case reports of every important Family Division, Court of Appeal, House of Lords and European courts case, and also includes practice directions, covering the whole range of family law, public and private child law.

Categories :
  • Archive
  • Judgments
Tags :
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from