LBX v K, L and M [2013] EWHC 4170 (Fam)

Vulnerable adult "In the judgment I handed down this morning I concluded that L has capacity in relation to decisions about where he should live, the care he receives and contact with his family. Having made that decision I then considered the question as to whether I should invoke the inherent jurisdiction as L was a vulnerable adult. ... I accept this is a difficult balance but, in this case, I am entirely satisfied that because of the vulnerability that this particular person has, and the very clear psychiatric evidence dating back to Dr. Halstead's report in 2007, endorsed by the various witnesses that gave evidence earlier this week, that he remains vulnerable to overwhelming emotional issues which could compromise his capacity. He needs to be able to retain his capacity in circumstances where he has emotional safety. That can only be where there is a proportionate structure in place that enables him to be able to maintain his capacity in a relatively calm environment, and free from the emotional maelstrom, as I have described it, resulting from the relationship that he has with his father in particular, and the relationship the father has with those who support L in the care that he has."

Thanks

Thanks to Alex Ruck Keene (39 Essex Chambers) for providing the judgment.

Essex

This case has been summarised on page 15 of 39 Essex Chambers, 'Mental Capacity Law Newsletter' (issue 49, August 2014).

CASES DATABASE

Full judgment: BAILII
Download here

Subject(s):

Inherent jurisdiction cases🔍 Older inherent jurisdiction cases can still be found in Category:Other capacity cases

Date: 15/11/13🔍

Court: High Court (Family Division)🔍

Judicial history:

Judge(s):

Theis🔍

Parties:

Citation number(s):

[2013] EWHC 4170 (Fam)^B
[2013] MHLO 149

What links here:

Published: 7/8/14 13:39

Cached: 2024-11-24 07:13:11