Holly.gif

Information for "Sunderland City Council v FP (2020) EWCOP 75"

Basic information

Display titleSunderland City Council v FP [2020] EWCOP 75
Default sort keySunderland City Council v FP (2020) EWCOP 75
Page length (in bytes)1,380
Page ID14997
Page content languageen - English
Page content modelwikitext
Indexing by robotsAllowed
Number of redirects to this page0

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 creation20:56, 24 March 2023
Latest editorJonathan (talk | contribs)
Date of latest edit20:56, 24 March 2023
Total number of edits1
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 (11)

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) The judge decided to assess capacity before moving on to fact finding: "I feel uncomfortable in assessing credibility and making findings and possibly making significant criticism without determining whether or not FP lacks capacity. If the evidence provides that FP has capacity across the board, the role of the Court of the Protection is rendered nugatory. If the Court is satisfied, on the evidence, that FP lacks capacity, in whatever regard, it is then the responsibility of the Court to investigate and reach conclusions about the best interests of FP in respect of matters on which she is found not to have capacity to decide. Therefore, I will consider the issue of capacity before proceeding, if justified, to make findings in this matter." (2) FP lacked capacity in relation to her care and support needs, residence and contact. (3) The LPA, under which FP's mother was the donee, was revoked. (4) Decisions about contact were for the Responsible Clinician (FP was detained under s3) but the court declared in the interim that FP should not live with her mother.
Information from Extension:WikiSEO