View source for Re UF (No 2) (2014) EWCOP 18, (2014) MHLO 78

"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: (i) 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? (ii) Should direction be given to the LPA finance about releasing equity from UF's property to pay for her care? (iii) Should the LPA finance be replaced by a Deputy appointed by the Court? (iv) Would any care regime at home still represent a deprivation of liberty?"

==Related judgments==
[[Re UF (No 2) (2014) EWCOP 18, (2014) MHLO 78]]
*[[UF v A Local Authority (2013) EWHC 4289 (COP), (2013) MHLO 105]]

==External link==
{{#bailii:(2014) EWCOP 18}}

[[Category:Deprivation of liberty]]
[[Category:No summary]]
[[Category:Transcript]]
[[Category:2014 cases]]