England and Wales Court of Protection Decisions

IN THE COURT OF PROTECTION

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL
		16 October 2019

This Transcript is Crown Copyright.  It may not be reproduced in whole or in part other than in accordance with relevant licence or with the express consent of the Authority.  All rights are reserved

MR JUSTICE WILLIAMS:

1. EOA is currently the respondent to proceedings brought by the Royal Borough of Greenwich under the Mental Capacity Act, and under the inherent jurisdiction in which orders are sought in respect of his welfare. The current issue before me today relates to where EOA should live pending the final hearing of these applications, which now looks likely to take place early in 2020, subject to the outcome of an expert assessment of EOA, which is currently being undertaken by Dr Rippon, who is to report on his capacity to conduct litigation, and his capacity to take decisions in his own right. And that is due to come in, in December.
2. But for today's purposes, the principal decision that needs to be taken is in relation to where EOA will live pending further hearings before the court. The situation is that EOA is currently living with his foster carer Ms W, who I think he has been with for quite some time following care proceedings in relation to EOA when he was a minor. He is of course now eighteen, and has been since the 5th August of this year, and hence the case has been progressing in the Court of Protection, which is the jurisdiction which I am exercising in relation to this most significant decision.
3. The foster care placement with Ms W, who is here in court today with EOA, is drawing to a close, and so alternative arrangements for EOA have been the subject of some consideration by the Local Authority. And a proposal has been made that EOA should move to a home, a residential, placement called T, in London, where a more formal care arrangement with staff would be implemented, which would implement restrictions on EOA's ability to come and go as he pleased, and which it is accepted would amount to a deprivation of EOA's liberty, given that he would not be free to come and go as he pleased, and other restrictions would be in place.
4. EOA himself has attended court today, and spoke to me at the beginning of the hearing, and expressed his very strong desire to be free of these court proceedings, and to be free to make his own choices in relation to where he lives, and with whom he spends his time. In particular, he is keen to be reunited with his brother, who he was living with, I think, until August of this year; and to be reunited with his wider family, including his father.
5. I understand the strength of feeling that EOA displays in relation to the desire of an eighteen-year-old young man to make his own choices, and to be reunited with his family. The circumstances in which EOA came into care in, I think, around 2016, from the limited amount I know of it, are very troubling, and obviously were sufficiently concerning to lead a family court judge to make a care order which placed EOA in the care of the Royal Borough of Greenwich.
6. As far as I am able to ascertain from the evidence that I have seen, the situation in relation to the family is unchanged, or at least there is no evidence that the family situation has changed to such an extent that it would be appropriate for EOA to re-join them. But of course, at the moment the position is, and it was ruled upon by Cobb J and confirmed by MacDonald J, that on the basis of the evidence currently before the court there is reason to believe that EOA does not have capacity to conduct the proceedings himself, or capacity to make decisions about where he should live for himself, and so the court has to take decisions based on his best interests.
7. At the moment, with the foster care placement drawing to a close, and no other alternatives for EOA's care other than the T accommodation, the choice is a stark one, which is either EOA goes to T or he has nowhere to live, and no one to help care for him, which leaves really very little choice in terms of his welfare. Because what is relatively clear on the evidence at the moment is that he should not be, and cannot be, left, as it were, to make the choices for himself, and simply to walk out of the door of Ms W's, and make his way alone in the world.
8. So, it is clear that it is in EOA's best interests to be provided with accommodation by Greenwich, and T appears, from what I have read, to be the appropriate home for EOA, until I can look at the case in more detail, and consider better evidence as to his capacity and as to his medium to long-term future.
9. So, in the short term, T is clearly the place where it is in his best interests to live. EOA, as I have already said, spoke passionately and forcefully earlier today that he does not want to go there, but if it is in his interests to go there, some means has to be found for him to go there. I hope that he will accept that he should go to live there for the short term until the court can consider matters again, and that it will not be necessary to implement any measures to, as it were, force him to go there. But if he finds himself unable to agree to going, then a plan will have to be put in place to ensure that he does end up there because, as I say, the alternative is so profoundly potentially harmful that there really is no other alternative.
10. And so it seems to me that it is clear it is also in EOA's best interests for a plan to be implemented to ensure that he gets to T one way or another. I hope that he will go voluntarily. If he does not though, I will authorise the use of such measures in a proportionate and staged implementation to ensure that he gets there, if necessary by using an approved provider of secure transport, who are able to deal with patients and vulnerable individuals such as EOA, to ensure that he does get there. So, I will make the interim declarations and approve the proposed care plan in respect of EOA.
11. In respect of his contact with in particular his brother and his father, the application is made under the inherent jurisdiction in relation to vulnerable adults. Cobb J concluded in August, I think, that EOA fell within the definition of a vulnerable adult within the decision of Sir James Munby in SA. I am not going to revisit that classification today. And given the circumstances, both as from what EOA has said, and from what I have read, it seems clear that it is in EOA's best interests that his contact with his family members is supervised by the Local Authority.
12. That issue again, and his classification as somebody who is vulnerable and whom the inherent jurisdiction can be used in respect of, will be the subject of further review, in particular because it seems to be accepted at the moment that EOA has capacity to make decisions as to contact himself, but no doubt Dr Rippon will be reporting on that area as well.
13. So, subject to the order being finalised, and the finer details of the transport plan being agreed between the Official Solicitor and the Local Authority, I will approve the proposal for EOA to move from Ms W's to T, which I think is due to be implemented as of next Monday or Tuesday.
14. That is my decision.
CERTIFICATE Opus 2 International Limited hereby certifies that the above is an accurate and complete record of the Judgment or part thereof. Transcribed by Opus 2 International Limited Official Court Reporters and Audio Transcribers 5 New Street Square, London, EC4A 3BF
Tel: 020 7831 5627 Fax: 020 7831 7737 civil@opus2.digital This transcript has been approved by the Judge / is subject to Judge's approval