Court of Protection Deliberates on Deprivation of Liberty and Care Planning for Vulnerable Young Adult

Introduction

The Court of Protection recently addressed a significant case involving an 18-year-old woman, referred to as Emma or EM, concerning issues of deprivation of liberty, care planning, and associated costs. The case was brought by Bury Metropolitan Borough Council, with EM represented by the Official Solicitor.

Background

Emma, diagnosed with ADHD and autism spectrum disorder, had a history of dysregulated behaviour and self-harm. Her care needs were complex, leading to her placement in a supported environment to meet her mental health requirements. The case illustrated the challenges faced by local authorities and healthcare providers in managing such cases.

Incidents and Care Planning

Emma's case was marked by numerous incidents of self-harm, including headbanging and ligature use, necessitating interventions such as verbal de-escalation and physical restraint. The court reviewed these incidents to determine appropriate care planning and the necessity of deprivation of liberty safeguards.

Proceedings

The proceedings began in the High Court, which authorised restrictions on Emma's liberty under its inherent jurisdiction. However, the case was later transferred to the Court of Protection, where the focus shifted to Emma's capacity to make decisions regarding her care and residence.

Capacity and Care Planning

The court examined Emma's capacity, which was found to fluctuate, complicating care planning. Dr Khan, Emma's psychiatrist, indicated that while Emma desired less restrictive care, her capacity to make relevant decisions was inconsistent. The court appointed an Independent Social Worker to provide further assessment.

Legal Considerations

The court emphasised the importance of care planning, noting that any deprivation of liberty must be necessary, proportionate, and in Emma's best interests. The court highlighted the need for continuous review of care plans to ensure they remain the least restrictive option.

Costs

The Official Solicitor applied for costs due to the local authority's failure to comply with court orders, which resulted in a wasted hearing. The court found in favour of the Official Solicitor, ordering the local authority to cover costs associated with the September hearing.

Conclusion

The case underscored the complexities of managing care for individuals with fluctuating capacity and significant mental health needs. The Court of Protection's decision highlighted the necessity of thorough care planning and the careful consideration of deprivation of liberty safeguards.

Learn More

For more information on mental health law and care planning, see BeCivil's guide to UK Mental Health Law.