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...
Latest articles
Re R (Children) (Control of Court Documents) [2021] EWCA Civ 162
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), King, Peter Jackson, Elisabeth Laing LJJ, 12 February 2021)Practice and Procedure – Disclosure of court documents – Sexual abuse findings –...
AG v VD [2021] EWFC 9
(Family Court, Cohen J, 04 February 2021) Financial Remedies – Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984, Part III – Russian divorceThe wife was awarded just under £6m...
Become the new General Editor of The Family Court Practice, the definitive word on family law and procedure
The Family Court Practice (‘The Red Book’) is widely acknowledged as the leading court reference work for all family practitioners and the judiciary. We are currently recruiting a...
SCTS releases new simplified divorce and dissolution forms for Scotland
The Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service (SCTS) has released new simplified divorce and dissolution forms of application. As a result of legislation repealing Council Regulation EC 2201/2003, the...
Welsh Government launches consultation on amendments to adoption regulations
The Welsh Government has launched a consultation on the proposed amendments to the Adoption Agencies (Wales) Regulations 2005 and the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (Wales) Regulations 2015....
View all articles

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