View source for LBX v K, L and M (2013) EWHC 4170 (Fam)

{{Case
|Date=2013/11/15
|NCN=[2013] EWHC 4170 (Fam)
|Essex issue=49
|Essex page=15
|Other citations=[2013] MHLO 149
|Court=High Court (Family Division)
|Judges=Theis
|Parties=LBX, K, L, M
|Judicial history first case=LBX v K, L and M (2010) EWHC 2422 (COP)
|Sentence=Vulnerable adult
|Summary="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."
|Detail===Thanks==
{{thanks|Ruck Keene, Alex|39 Essex Chambers}}
|Subject=Inherent jurisdiction cases
|Judgment=LBX v K, L and M (2013) EWHC 4170 (Fam), (2013) MHLO 149.pdf
|News=No
|RSS pubdate=2023/07/27 10:43:17 PM
}}