header-logo header-logo

29 July 2010 / Jonathan Herring
Issue: 7428 / Categories: Features , Family , Mental health
printer mail-detail

The right to choose

Contraception, mental capacity & state intervention. Jonathan Herring reports

When does someone have capacity to consent to receive, or not to receive, contraception? When is it in someone’s best interests to be given contraception? These were the key questions at the heart of a fascinating decision: A Local Authority v Mrs A and Mr A [2010] EWHC 1549 (Fam).

The facts

Mrs A was aged 29. According to the evidence before the court she had an extremely low level of intellectual functioning. She had previously had two children removed from her at birth because there were real concerns that she would not be able to provide adequate care for them. In 2006 she had married Mr A. He too had a learning difficulty and a significant impairment of intellectual functioning. Before her marriage Mrs A had been receiving daily support from the local authority’s community living team. The team had been arranging for her to receive contraception by means of a monthly depot injection, to which she consented. Since her marriage

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

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
An indemnity costs battle with a £20m gap could reopen an important question: what weight should an approved budget carry?
back-to-top-scroll