Spotlight
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...
Spotlight
Latest articles
Resolution issues Brexit notes for family lawyers ahead of IP completion day
Family lawyer organisation, Resolution, has issued two joint notes to assist family lawyers in England and Wales ahead of the end of the Brexit transition/implementation period at 11 pm on 31 December...
Online filing is real-time on New Year's Eve: practice direction change to accommodate EU withdrawal arrangements
I have heard that there will be an amendment to the relevant practice directions to provide that online applications received on New Year’s Eve after 4:30 PM and before 11:00 PM will count as...
Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust v AB
The issue in this case concerned AB’s capacity to make specific decisions about treatment relating to her anorexia nervosa. She was 28 years old and had suffered with anorexia since the age of...
EU laws continue until at least 2038 and beyond
The UK left the EU on 31 January 2020.  But in matters of law it fully leaves on 31 December 2020.  But EU laws will continue to apply, and be applied, in the English family courts from 1...
Remote hearings in family proceedings – how is justice perceived?
The motion for the recent Kingsley Napley debate:  “This House believes remote hearings are not remotely fair” was carried with a fairly balanced 56% in favour and 44% against....
View all articles
Authors

CAPACITY: A NHS Trust v DE (by his Litigation Friend the Official Solicitor) [2013] EWHC 2562 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 21:12 PM
Slug : capacity-a-nhs-trust-v-de-by-his-litigation-friend-the-official-solicitor-2013-ewhc-2562-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Aug 29, 2013, 09:35 AM
Article ID : 103455

(Court of Protection, Eleanor King J, 16 August 2013)

The 36-year-old man suffered with a long-term learning disability.  However, with years of support from his parents, care workers, and clinicians, by 2009 he was capable of semi-independence and undertaking day-to-day tasks.  He was regarded as being gentle, friendly, and popular, socialising with friends and maintaining a relationship of ten years with a woman who also suffered from a learning disability, albeit to a less severe standard.  She fell pregnant and, subsequently, gave birth to their child - causing much concern from her own and the man's parents over whether or not the man had the mental capacity to consent to sexual relations. After discussions with the family GP, and taking into consideration the man's insistence that he did not want any more children, the man's parents decided that it would be in his best interests for him to have a vasectomy.

Following permission sought from the applicant NHS Trust, granted in October 2012, work was carried out with the man by a community learning disability nurse and a clinical psychologist in order to assess his understanding of a vasectomy procedure, and whether he had the capacity to consent to sexual relations with his girlfriend.  By July 2013, both the nurse and the psychologist were of the opinion that the man displayed the capacity to consent to sexual relations, but not the capacity to consent to using contraception.  An independent psychiatric report concluded that a vasectomy would be the most effective and beneficial means of contraception for the man, and would be carried out with his best interests in mind.

The evidence that the man lacked the capacity to consent to a vasectomy was never disputed: the subject was left to the court to decide what would be the best action to take for him.

Having regard to Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights, in conjunction with s4(2) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, the court had a duty to make a decision with an aim to maintain the continuation of the man's current semi-independent lifestyle. Eleanor King J ruled that it would, indeed, be in the man's best interests to have a vasectomy. It was made very clear that, despite the routine nature of the procedure, the decision to sterilise the man was taken extremely seriously by the court at all times throughout the hearing process.  

 

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