header-logo header-logo

05 August 2010 / Ed Mitchell
Issue: 7429 / Categories: Features , Public , Community care , Mental health
printer mail-detail

Protecting the vulnerable

Ed Mitchell uncovers some serious flaws in the care of vulnerable adults

Concern is starting to be expressed at senior levels of the Court of Protection about the unilateral way in which some local authorities carry out their protection of vulnerable adults work. A recent decision of Baker J, sitting as a nominated judge of the Court of Protection, was highly critical of a local authority for removing a young man with severe learning disabilities from the home of his long-term carer and then failing to make any arrangements for contact between them for a number of months (G v E & Others [2010] EWHC 621 (Fam), [2010] All ER (D) 120 (Apr)). Neither of those actions was authorised by order of the Court of Protection, as they should have been, and the judge found “serious breaches” of the adult’s and carer’s rights to respect for their private and family lives under Art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention). The theme was developed by Munby LJ, speaking extra-judicially

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Construction team bolstered by hire of senior consultant duo

Switalskis—four appointments

Switalskis—four appointments

Firm expands residential conveyancing team with quadruple appointment

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

Private client team welcomes senior associatein Worcester

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll