MA & AA, Re (Re Section 21A of the Mental Capacity Act 2005) [2023] EWCOP 65 (08 December 2023)

MA & AA, Re (Re Section 21A of the Mental Capacity Act 2005) [2023] EWCOP 65 (08 December 2023)

It is in both MA and AA's best interests to remain in their current placements and have no contact at this time, as any form of contact (including remote) causes distress or provides no benefit, and moving AA would be detrimental. The cessation of contact is a necessary and proportionate interference with Article 8 rights and does not constitute a breach.

Citation
[2023] EWCOP 65
Parties
First Applicant: MA; Second Applicant: AA; First Respondent: A Local Authority; Second Respondent: An ICB
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 December 2023
Procedural Posture
Section 21 a Mental Capacity Act 2005 Proceedings (court of Protection) / Final Judgment After Contested Hearing
Outcome
Applications for contact and for AA to move are refused; declaration of Article 8 breach is refused.
Legal Topics
Best Interests, Deprivation of Liberty, Article 8 ECHR, Contact Arrangements, Capacity, Declarations Under S.15 MCA 2005
Mental Capacity Health and Welfare Human Rights Best Interests Deprivation of Liberty Article 8 ECHR Contact Arrangements Capacity +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MA

First Applicant

AA

Second Applicant

A Local Authority

First Respondent

An ICB

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Section 21 a Mental Capacity Act 2005 Proceedings (court of Protection) / Final Judgment After Contested Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether it is in MA and AA's best interests to have contact with each other and by what means
  2. 2 Whether AA should move to a different placement
  3. 3 Whether cessation of contact breaches MA's Article 8 rights

Ratio Decidendi

It is in both MA and AA's best interests to remain in their current placements and have no contact at this time, as any form of contact (including remote) causes distress or provides no benefit, and moving AA would be detrimental. The cessation of contact is a necessary and proportionate interference with Article 8 rights and does not constitute a breach.

Court Disposition

Applications for contact and for AA to move are refused; declaration of Article 8 breach is refused.

Orders

  • MA and AA to remain in their current placements.
  • No contact (including remote) between MA and AA at this time.