UF v X County Council & Ors (No.2)
2014
COURT OF PROTECTION
United Kingdom
CORAM
- MR JUSTICE COBB
Areas of Law
- Human Rights Law
- Civil Procedure
- Property and Real Estate Law
2014
COURT OF PROTECTION
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The court ruled that UF, who suffers from moderate vascular dementia, should remain in The Elms care home rather than return to her home. The decision was based on UF’s best interests, taking into account her inconsistent understanding of 'home' and the potential disruption of moving her. Additionally, the court found that any placement at home would still constitute a deprivation of liberty. Furthermore, UF’s property (Ridgeways) must be sold to fund her ongoing care costs.
Judgment
MR JUSTICE COBB
This judgment was delivered in private. The judge has given leave for this version of the judgment to be published on condition that (irrespective of what is contained in the judgment) in any published version of the judgment the anonymity of the incapacitated person and members of their family must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so will be a contempt of court.
The Honourable Mr. Justice Cobb :
Introduction
These proceedings concern UF, a lady of 84 years of age; she has been diagnosed as suffering from vascular dementia of a moderate level, with associated behavioural and psychological symptoms. She is currently residing in a care home which I shall call for present purposes ‘The Elms’. The proceedings were launched by AF, UF’s youngest daughter, in August 2013 as a challenge under section 21A MCA 2005 to the standard authorisation of deprivation of liberty.
The remit of my enquiry at this hearing was defined by order of Charles J in May 2014, thus:
Is it in UF’s best interests to return to her home to live with a contingency plan of maintaining her current placement for a period of time?
Should direction be given to the LPA finance about releasing equity from UF’s property to pay for her care?
Should the LPA finance be replaced by a Deputy appointed by the Court?
Would any care regime at home still represent a deprivation of liberty?
Charles J described the issues which have fallen to me to determine in these terms ( Re UF [2013] EWCOP 4289 §5):
“ At the heart of the dispute, again not unfamiliar to the Court of Protection, is the choice to be made between care in a residential home and care at home with a support package which provides physical safety, and many of the arguments in favour of the support package at UF's home relate to the promotion of the emotional security and happiness of UF. These are very human stories and issues. They present, of course, members of the family with difficult issues and problems. Also, but without the same emotional element, they present employees of the relevant local authority and those from whom members of the family seek advice with practical problems and with problems arising from the technicalities of the MCA and in particular the labyrinthine provisions relating to its DOLS ”
At an interlocutory stage of these proceedings, Charles J, delivered a judgment (