KW, Re [2015] EWCOP 53 (14 July 2015)

KW, Re [2015] EWCOP 53 (14 July 2015)

The court found that RH meets KW's assessed needs, KW has consistently expressed a wish to remain there, and there is no available alternative placement identified. The court cannot make a declaration about a move to London or elsewhere without a specific placement. The Section 21A challenge is dismissed as the best interests requirement is satisfied at RH.

Citation
[2015] EWCOP 53
Parties
Applicant: DW; First Respondent: KW (by her litigation friend, the Official Solicitor); Second Respondent: LCC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Court of Protection Mental Capacity Act Challenge / Final Hearing and Judgment
Outcome
Section 21A challenge dismissed; standard authorisation for deprivation of liberty at RH upheld.
Legal Topics
Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (do Ls), Best Interests Determination, Section 21 a Challenge, Care Act 2014 Section 37, Capacity Assessment, Residential Placement, Contact With Family
Mental Capacity Law Health and Social Care Law Human Rights Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (do Ls) Best Interests Determination Section 21 a Challenge Care Act 2014 Section 37 Capacity Assessment +2 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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

DW

Applicant

KW (by her litigation friend, the Official Solicitor)

First Respondent

LCC

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Court of Protection Mental Capacity Act Challenge / Final Hearing and Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether it is in KW's best interests to be deprived of her liberty at RH
  2. 2 Whether KW should be moved to a placement closer to her family
  3. 3 Whether the court can declare it is in KW's best interests to live in London without a specific placement identified

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that RH meets KW's assessed needs, KW has consistently expressed a wish to remain there, and there is no available alternative placement identified. The court cannot make a declaration about a move to London or elsewhere without a specific placement. The Section 21A challenge is dismissed as the best interests requirement is satisfied at RH.

Court Disposition

Section 21A challenge dismissed; standard authorisation for deprivation of liberty at RH upheld.

Orders

  • KW to remain at RH; regular four-monthly reviews of placement and options to be conducted by LCC; local authority to consider reviewing transport policy to facilitate family contact; no declaration made regarding a move to London or alternative placement.