Re RK (Capacity: Contact: Inherent Jurisdiction)

Re RK (Capacity: Contact: Inherent Jurisdiction)

R has capacity to make decisions about contact with her family and others. The family has not rebutted the presumption of capacity. There is no evidence of undue influence, coercion, or constraint by care providers. R lacks capacity to revoke LPAs due to cognitive impairment. The court declines to exercise inherent...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Applicant: NK; Respondent: RK; Respondent: X County Council; Respondent: AK
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Court of Protection Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application for declarations/orders largely refused; declarations made as to capacity and LPAs; inherent jurisdiction not exercised.
Legal Topics
Capacity to Make Decisions About Contact, Lasting Power of Attorney, Undue Influence, Best Interests, Supportive Framework for Vulnerable Adults
Mental Capacity Inherent Jurisdiction Family Law Capacity to Make Decisions About Contact Lasting Power of Attorney Undue Influence Best Interests Supportive Framework for Vulnerable Adults

Source-derived case record

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 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

NK

Applicant

RK

Respondent

X County Council

Respondent

AK

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Court of Protection Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does R have capacity to make decisions about contact with her family?
  2. 2 Is R subject to undue influence, coercion, or constraint by her care providers?
  3. 3 Does R lack capacity to revoke Lasting Powers of Attorney?

Ratio Decidendi

R has capacity to make decisions about contact with her family and others. The family has not rebutted the presumption of capacity. There is no evidence of undue influence, coercion, or constraint by care providers. R lacks capacity to revoke LPAs due to cognitive impairment. The court declines to exercise inherent jurisdiction as R is not deprived of free choice. Supportive framework proposals are encouraged but not ordered.

Court Disposition

Application for declarations/orders largely refused; declarations made as to capacity and LPAs; inherent jurisdiction not exercised.

Orders

  • Declaration that R lacks capacity to revoke LPAs for property and affairs and health and welfare.
  • Declaration that R has capacity to decide on contact with her natural family and others.