View source for A Local Authority v Mrs A and Mr A (2010) EWHC 1549 (Fam)

''(1) The test for capacity to make decisions as to contraceptive treatment should be applied so as to ascertain the woman's ability to understand and weigh up the immediate medical issues surrounding contraceptive treatment ("the proximate medical issues"), including: (i) the reason for contraception and what it does (which includes the likelihood of pregnancy if it is not in use during sexual intercourse); (ii) the types available and how each is used; (iii) the advantages and disadvantages of each type; (iv) the possible side-effects of each and how they can be dealt with; (v) how easily each type can be changed; and (vi) the generally accepted effectiveness of each. (2) Questions do not need be asked as to the woman's understanding of what bringing up a child would be like in practice; nor any opinion attempted as to how she would be likely to get on; nor whether any child would be likely to be removed from her care. (3) Mrs A did understand the proximate medical issues. (4) However, her decision not to continue taking contraception was not the product of her own free will: she was unable to weigh up the pros and cons of contraception because of the coercive pressure under which she had been placed both intentionally and unconsciously by Mr A. (5) The judge made no order as to Mrs A's best interests, preferring that an attempt be made to achieve a capacitated decision from Mrs A, through 'ability-appropriate' help and discussion without undue contrary pressure from Mr A. (6) The court has a wide inherent jurisdiction to prevent conduct by the dominant party which coerces or unduly influences the vulnerable party from making free decisions, but on the facts no injunction against Mr A was necessary.''

==Official summary==
{{COP2010|10 }}

==Citations==
[2010] Fam Law 928, (2010) 13 CCL Rep 536, [2010] EWHC 1549 (Fam)

A Local Authority v Mrs A (Test for Capacity as to Contraception) [2011] 1 FLR 26

A Local Authority v A and another (capacity: contraception) [2011] 3 All ER 706

Re A (Capacity: Refusal of Contraception)

Duplicate Bailii citation number: [2010] EWHC 1549 (COP)

==External links==
{{#bailii:(2010) EWHC 1549 (Fam)}}

[[Media:A Local Authority v Mrs A and Mr A (2010) EWHC 1549.pdf|Transcript]]

[http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?article_id=104200 Mondaq: 'The Court Of Protection – Recent Cases And Comments On Procedure (Part 1)', Alexis Hearnden, Victoria Butler - Cole and Alex Ruck Keene, 1/7/10] - Summary at paras 20-21

Jonathan Herring, 'Family: The right to choose', (2010) 160 NLJ 1066. The author criticises the judge's decision: for not referring to [[MCA 2005 s5]] (whether restraint proportionate to risk); for finding that in this case there were no "risks to physical or mental health through pregnancy, childbirth, or the removal of a child"; for failing to take into account Mrs A's pre-incapacity views. The final paragraph states: "Bodey J was well aware of the sensitive nature of the case before him. The history of court-enforced sterilisation and the social engineering that sometimes went with it rightly requires judges to tread carefully in this area. His recognition that court orders, backed up with force, are not necessarily the best way to deal with delicate situations must be welcomed. Still, there is a real concern that here is a victim of domestic violence, whose husband is seeking to prevent her obtaining contraception, and the court is standing by. Bodey J made no mention of Mrs A's human rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. If his starting point had been a recognition of her rights to bodily integrity and protection from inhuman and degrading treatment, the end point might have been very different." [http://www.newlawjournal.co.uk/nlj/content/right-choose New Law Journal - subscription required]

Nasreen Pearce and Sue Jackson, 'Mental Capacity, Contraception and the Court Of Protection', [2010] Fam Law 1317 (1 December 2010). Another critical article.

[http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2010/08/25/contraception-capacity-and-coercion-when-does-a-woman-lack-capacity-to-decide-whether-to-use-contraceptive-treatment/#more-3889 Human Rights Blog: Contraception, capacity and coercion: when does a woman lack capacity to decide whether to use contraceptive treatment?] - 25/8/10

[http://www.pressassociation.com/component/pafeeds/2010/08/19/forced_contraception_plan_condemned Press Association, 'Forced contraception plan condemned' (19/8/11)]

[[Category:Best interests]]
[[Category:Brief summary]]
[[Category:Transcript]]
[[Category:2010 cases]]