At this attended hearing before District Judge Mark Mullins, the Court of Protection granted an application by the London Borough of Hackney that it is in a man’s best interests to reside in supported living accommodation.
Barrister Lindsay Johnson, representing the local authority, was asked to give an introduction to the case. He told the court that this was an application for welfare orders to allow a man, whose identity is legally protected and will therefore be referred to as Mr PN, to reside at a supported living complex.
We were told a previous placement was not a success as Mr PN had exhibited “very challenging behaviour and self-harmed” with Judge Mullins remarking that “the last placement wasn’t very good at understanding the subtleties of what is being proposed”. Mr PN had also reportedly “spent a large amount of time away with [his girlfriend]”.
The girlfriend (Ms AB), listed as a second respondent to the application, and whose identity is also protected, currently lives with her brother in their mothers property. Mr Johnson told the court that Mr PN is currently living full time with them, a situation Ms AB is said “at various points not to be happy with”. We were told there was resistance by Ms AB’s family to carers attending the property to assist.
Mr PN was said to be “willing and eager to move” to what was described as a one-bed-flat with a garden. “He has already packed his bags” and could move as early as tomorrow (13/10/2021) we were told.
Mr Johnson invited the court, on behalf of the local authority, to authorise the move on an interim basis and return with a review in 12 weeks time.
The barrister representing Mr PN, Ms Alison Harvey, instructed by the Official Solicitor, explained in her position statement that they wanted to question the author of a so-called Section 49 report. We were told this report determined that Mr PN lacked capacity, although it was claimed that the correct tests hadn’t been applied. Mr Johnson said he did not object to the questioning but the Local Authority would want to see the questions and possible file their own.
We were also told that the Official Solicitor hadn’t been provided with a detailed diary, said to have been prepared by the provider of the supported accommodation, showing a daily activity plan for Mr PN.
The official solicitor was also said to be concerned about the proposed level of contact between Mr PN and Ms AB being too low. We were told that the proposed order stated contact would between midday and 3pm on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays unless otherwise agreed. This would allow the couple “to cook, go out for lunch or watch TV”.
The court was reassured that despite Mr PN receiving 1-1 care during waking hours this would be “light touch” and the “carer won’t be sitting in the corner like a gooseberry” in the event that Ms AB was present. It was stressed that this wasn’t a deprivation of liberty order and there would be nothing to stop Mr PN from, for example, “booking a hotel room” or leaving the property.
We were told the accommodation provider was reluctant to have Ms AB stay overnight due to safeguarding concerns that could not be managed. These included “unsubstantiated claims over control” and “allegations of financial abuse”. No findings of fact had been made in either event we were told. The supported living comprises a number of similar flats, entry to which requires passing through a communal area. The provider would have jurisdiction to prevent Ms PN passing through this communal area if it wished to, we were told.
The phrase that contact would be granted ‘unless otherwise agreed’ was a focus of attention for DJ Mullins who was keen to ensure that any relaxation of the rules could happen without the need to involve the court. “What if [the supported living company] say ‘things are going very well’ after 6 weeks. If everyone agrees, does that need a hearing? We should remove procedural barriers to making things less restrictive” he said.
Another focus of attention by DJ Mullins was talk of a holiday that Mr PN and Ms AB had said to want to take to Disney Land in France. The judge found it “disappointing” that an order the court had made back in July, for details to be provided about Mr PN’s finances, hadn’t been complied with. If it had, the court “would know whether there’s money for carers” to accompany them. It “would be a shame to lose sight” of the holiday DJ Mullins said.
The court authorised Mr PN’s move to the supported accommodation, which we were told would begin the following morning. DJ Mullins directed that the Local Authority should file a Witness Statement by 7th January 2022 to include an update on the placement, details about contact between the couple, and proposals for Mr PN’s long-term-care.
The official solicitor could file a Witness Statement in response, within 14 days, to allow a 2-hour hearing to take place on the first available date after 31/01/2022.
DJ Mullins ended the hearing by telling Mr PN “I hope the move goes well”.
In The Court of Protection
5th Floor First Avenue House
42-49 High Holborn
London WC1V 6NP
Tuesday 12 October 2021 14.00
Before District Judge MULLINS
Court 24
COP 13559468
The London Borough of Hackney and PN and AB. To consider: PN’s residence, case and contact with others.
Mouse in the Court 
Reblogged this on Cpeanose.
LikeLike