Z & Ors, Re

Z & Ors, Re

The Local Authority failed to rebut the presumption of Z's capacity. The evidence, particularly from 2015, shows that Z has matured, learned from experience, and is able to use and weigh relevant information regarding residence, care, and contact. Her risk-taking is not sufficient evidence of incapacity but reflects...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Applicant: WBC; Respondent: Z; Respondent: X (mother); Respondent: Y (father)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 January 2016
Procedural Posture
Court of Protection / Judgment on Capacity
Outcome
Presumption of capacity not rebutted; Z found to have capacity in the matters under review.
Legal Topics
Capacity Assessment, Autism and Decision Making, Unwise Decisions Vs Incapacity, Court of Protection Procedure
Mental Capacity Law Health Law Family Law Capacity Assessment Autism and Decision Making Unwise Decisions Vs Incapacity Court of Protection Procedure

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 1 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

WBC

Applicant

Z

Respondent

X (mother)

Respondent

Y (father)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Court of Protection / Judgment on Capacity

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Z lacks capacity to make decisions regarding residence, contact, care, and litigation under the Mental Capacity Act 2005
  2. 2 Whether Z's risk-taking is evidence of incapacity or ordinary adolescent behaviour

Ratio Decidendi

The Local Authority failed to rebut the presumption of Z's capacity. The evidence, particularly from 2015, shows that Z has matured, learned from experience, and is able to use and weigh relevant information regarding residence, care, and contact. Her risk-taking is not sufficient evidence of incapacity but reflects ordinary adolescent behaviour. The Brighton trip, while unwise, demonstrated Z's ability to recognise risk and act appropriately. The statutory test requires inability, not mere impairment, and the burden of proof was not met.

Court Disposition

Presumption of capacity not rebutted; Z found to have capacity in the matters under review.

Orders

  • No declarations of incapacity made; Z is not subject to further orders restricting her decision-making.