Information for "London Borough of Tower Hamlets v A (2020) EWCOP 21"

Basic information

Display titleLondon Borough of Tower Hamlets v A [2020] EWCOP 21
Default sort keyLondon Borough of Tower Hamlets v A (2020) EWCOP 21
Page length (in bytes)1,812
Page ID10696
Page content languageen - English
Page content modelwikitext
Indexing by robotsAllowed
Number of redirects to this page0
Counted as a content pageYes
Page imageEssex newsletter 104.pdf

Page protection

EditAllow only users with "editing" permission (infinite)
MoveAllow only users with "editing" permission (infinite)
View the protection log for this page.

Edit history

Page creatorJonathan (talk | contribs)
Date of page creation09:02, 26 April 2020
Latest editorJonathan (talk | contribs)
Date of latest edit23:32, 4 July 2023
Total number of edits8
Total number of distinct authors1
Recent number of edits (within past 90 days)0
Recent number of distinct authors0

Page properties

Hidden categories (2)

This page is a member of 2 hidden categories:

Transcluded templates (13)

Templates used on this page:

SEO properties

Description

Content

Article description: (description)
This attribute controls the content of the description and og:description elements.
(1) Residence and care decisions are usually considered as individual domains of capacity, in keeping with the MCA's "issue-specific" approach; residence and care decisions involve overlapping information and are not made in separate "silos"; overlap does not mean that a residence decision incorporates a care decision: it is not necessary to make a capacitous decision about care in order to make a capacitous decision about residence. What was required for A to make a capacitous decision about where she lives is a broad understanding of the sort of care which would be provided in each of the two places of residence potentially available to her. Although it was agreed that A lacked capacity to decide how she was cared for, it was decided that she had capacity to decide whether to continue to live in residential care or return to live in her own flat with a care package. (2) Legal Aid would have ended had the DOLS standard authorisation ended: in a postscript the judge decided that, as A had no choice until the home care package was available, "the determination that A lacks capacity to determine the care that she should receive necessarily means that she lacks capacity within the meaning of paragraph 15 of Schedule A1 (that "[t]he relevant person meets the mental capacity requirement if he lacks capacity in relation to the question whether or not he should be accommodated in the relevant hospital or care home for the purpose of being given the relevant care or treatment").
Information from Extension:WikiSEO