HBCC v LG [2010] EWHC 1527 (Fam)
It was in the best interests of an elderly lady suffering from dementia to remain at a residential home, rather than be returned home to live with her daughter (who was assisted by a McKenzie Friend, whose role was the subject of consideration by the Court
Summary and commentary
This case, concerning whether an elderly lady, LG, should remain at a residential home or be returned home to live with her a daughter, is primarily of interest as a case-study in why the new guidance upon McKenzie Friends issued by the President (http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/pub_media/mckenzie-friends-practice-guidance-july-2010.pdf) is so timely. Formally, that guidance does not apply in the Court of Protection, but it is overwhelmingly like that the Court of Protection will adopt in in the manner that Eleanor King J adopted the earlier guidance in this case. In this case, the McKenzie Friend in question strayed very considerably beyond the wide latitude given him by the Court and was the subject of some polite but pointed criticism by the learned judge.
Of note otherwise is that Eleanor King J made it clear that she considered that the analysis of the role of Article 8 conducted under the inherent jurisdiction in Re F (Adult: Court’s jurisdiction) [2000] 2 FLR 512Not on Bailii! and Re S (Adult Patient) (Inherent Jurisdiction: Family Life) [2003] 1 FLR 292B held true when considering the position under the MCA 2005. This is not a surprising proposition, but it is helpful to have judicial guidance upon the point.
Without any disrespect to the Court, the case itself contains little of wider importance other than representing a careful application of conventional legal principles (conveniently summarised at paragraphs 33-43) to the very sad facts of a case in which the daughter of P struggled with very substantial difficulties herself and whose conduct of the litigation (in person) clearly called for some very careful judicial management.