Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council v GS & Anor
2014
COURT OF PROTECTION
United Kingdom
CORAM
- MR JUSTICE HOLMAN
Areas of Law
- Family Law
- Health Law
- Human Rights Law
2014
COURT OF PROTECTION
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case involved a young adult, P, with learning disabilities and autism, whose future care was in dispute between his parents and the local authority. The central question centered on whether the Court of Protection could authorize deprivation of liberty under specific regulations. The court ruled that Regulation 17A of the Children’s Homes Regulations 2001 and paragraph 3.19 of the National Minimum Standards for Children’s Homes do not prevent the court from authorizing deprivation of liberty for an adult in a children’s home.
J U D G M E N T
MR JUSTICE HOLMAN:
I have heard the whole of this case in public and now give this judgment in public. However, I direct that no report of this case in the media or elsewhere may name or identify the patient concerned, nor his family, nor the address at which he or they live.
This judgment might be described as a sequel to the judgment I gave in the completely separate case of Liverpool City Council –v- SG [2014] EWCOP 10 on 18 th June 2014 (“the Liverpool case”). The present case is the case of Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council and S, S and P (Case No. 12498686) to which I referred in paragraph 12 of my judgment in the Liverpool case. This case, like the Liverpool case, concerns an application which has been made to the Court of Protection in relation to a young adult, P, who is now aged just 20. He has learning disability and is on the autism spectrum, and currently continues to reside at a registered children’s home where he was residing before he attained the age of 18.
There is disagreement between P’s parents, on the one hand, and the local authority, on the other hand, as to the most appropriate arrangements for the longer term care of P, now that he is adult. His parents, who live far from London, did not attend the present hearing, which was directed to a pure point of law, but they did lodge a skeleton argument, which I have read. It is an articulate and eloquent document, which sets out very clearly their view and case that arrangements should be made, and funded, so that P can live at home with his family.
The local authority, on the other hand, consider that his welfare is best served by remaining in residential care provided by the State. The local authority recognise that their current arrangements and future plans for P involve a deprivation of his liberty, as that concept is now understood in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the Cheshire West case; so they commenced the present proceedings in the Court of Protection, sitting in Sheffield, where the case is being managed by District Judge Bellamy of the Court of Protection.
The most recent hearing was on 19 th August 2014. The Secretary of State for Education had applied for permission to intervene to raise the issue, which I now address in this judgment, and was granted permission to do so.
District Judge Bellamy temporarily transferred the case to a High Court Judge to determine a preliminary issue which he identified in his order as follows: