PB v RB & Anor [2016] EWHC COP 12 (26 February 2016)

PB v RB & Anor [2016] EWHC COP 12 (26 February 2016)

It is in RB’s best interests to remain at E Care Home. Her wishes and feelings regarding residence are now inconsistent and confused, her emotional and physical health have improved significantly at the care home, and she benefits from the structured environment, social interaction, and 24-hour support. The risks of social isolation, emotional decline, and instability outweigh the theoretical benefits of a return home. Deprivation of liberty at E Care Home is necessary and proportionate to prevent harm and promote her welfare.

Citation
[2016] EWHC COP 12
Parties
Applicant: PB; 1st Respondent: RB (by her litigation friend the Official Solicitor); 2nd Respondent: London Borough of Haringey
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 February 2016
Procedural Posture
Court of Protection Welfare Application / Final Hearing and Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed; RB to remain at E Care Home.
Legal Topics
Best Interests Decision Making, Deprivation of Liberty, Residential Care Vs Home Care, Article 5 and 8 ECHR Rights, Capacity Assessment, Family Contact and Involvement
Mental Capacity Law Human Rights Law Adult Social Care Best Interests Decision Making Deprivation of Liberty Residential Care Vs Home Care Article 5 and 8 ECHR Rights Capacity Assessment +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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PB

Applicant

RB (by her litigation friend the Official Solicitor)

1st Respondent

London Borough of Haringey

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Court of Protection Welfare Application / Final Hearing and Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether it is in RB’s best interests to remain at E Care Home or return to her home at R Close
  2. 2 Whether restrictions on PB’s contact should be lifted or varied
  3. 3 Whether deprivation of liberty at E Care Home is necessary and proportionate

Ratio Decidendi

It is in RB’s best interests to remain at E Care Home. Her wishes and feelings regarding residence are now inconsistent and confused, her emotional and physical health have improved significantly at the care home, and she benefits from the structured environment, social interaction, and 24-hour support. The risks of social isolation, emotional decline, and instability outweigh the theoretical benefits of a return home. Deprivation of liberty at E Care Home is necessary and proportionate to prevent harm and promote her welfare.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; RB to remain at E Care Home.

Orders

  • RB shall remain resident at E Care Home.
  • The standard authorisation for deprivation of liberty is extended to allow the local authority to seek a further authorisation.