Spotlight
Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2021 edition due out in May
Court of Protection Practice 2021
'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...
Spotlight
Latest articles
JM v RM [2021] EWHC 315 (Fam)
(Family Division, Mostyn J, 22 February 2021)Abduction – Wrongful retention – Hague Convention application – Mother decided not to return to Australia with children – COVID 19...
Re A (A Child) (Hague Convention 1980: Set Aside) [2021] EWCA Civ 194
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Moylan, Asplin LJJ, Hayden J, 23 February 2021)Abduction – Hague Convention 1980 – Return order made – Mother successfully applied to set aside due...
Disabled women more than twice as likely to experience domestic abuse
The latest data from the Office of National Statistics shows that, in the year ending March 2020, around 1 in 7 (14.3%) disabled people aged 16 to 59 years experienced any form of domestic abuse in...
The President of the Family Division endorses Public Law Working Group report
The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary has published a message from the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, in which the President endorses the publication of the President’s...
HMCTS updates online divorce services guidance
HM Courts and Tribunals Service have recently updated the online divorce services guidance with the addition of guides for deemed and dispensed service applications, alternative service...
View all articles
Authors

WELFARE:PH v A Local Authority and Z Limited and R [2011] EWHC 1704 (Fam), [2012] COPLR 128

Sep 29, 2018, 21:32 PM
Slug : 2011ewhc1704fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : May 25, 2012, 02:40 AM
Article ID : 98939

(Court of Protection, Baker J, 30 June 2011)

The 49-year-old man suffered from Huntindon's disease and had been cared for by his wife in the community. When his condition deteriorated he was placed in a residential care home and was told it was a temporary placement. In fact it was a permanent arrangement. The man issued proceedings to challenge the standard authorisation put in place by the local authority under Sch A1 to the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

An independent psychiatrist reported that the man had capacity to decide where he should live but his treating psychiatrist, social worker and two GPs who had assessed the man determined that he lacked capacity in that regard.

In finding that the man lacked capacity to determine where he should live the judge found that the man lacked the ability to understand retain and weigh salient information about such decisions.

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