Abstract
These proceedings were a sequel to the case reported as Re F (Mental Health Act: Guardianship), in which the Court of Appeal held that wardship proceedings were preferable to guardianship proceedings under section 7 of the Mental Health Act 1983 where there were concerns for the wellbeing of a seventeen-year-old girl who had a mental age of between five and eight years.
Highlights
The rights of a compliant, incapacitated adult could best be preserved by subjecting her to greater compulsion. These proceedings were a sequel to the case reported as Re F (Mental Health Act: Guardianship),[1] in which the Court of Appeal held that wardship proceedings were preferable to guardianship proceedings under section 7 of the Mental Health Act 1983 where there were concerns for the wellbeing of a seventeen-year-old girl who had a mental age of between five and eight years.[2]
The young woman who had been the subject of the previous case, Miss T, was eighteen yearsof-age, and the wardship jurisdiction had become unavailable. Her parents had withdrawn their consent for her to reside in local authority accommodation and, following her father’s death, her mother had continued to seek T’s return home
Invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court, the local authority had sought declarations, the effect of which would be to keep her in residential accommodation and to restrict contact with her mother and other members of her family
Summary
These proceedings were a sequel to the case reported as Re F (Mental Health Act: Guardianship),[1] in which the Court of Appeal held that wardship proceedings were preferable to guardianship proceedings under section 7 of the Mental Health Act 1983 where there were concerns for the wellbeing of a seventeen-year-old girl who had a mental age of between five and eight years.[2]. “It would in my opinion be a sad failure were the law to determine that Johnson J has no jurisdiction to investigate, and if necessary, to make declarations as to T’s best interests to ensure that the protection that she has received belatedly in her minority is not summarily withdrawn because she has attained the age of 18.” It was precisely because guardianship regimes, whether statutory or inherent, might restrict the liberty of the individual that the 1983 Mental Health Act had reduced their scope, but:. The appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal to House of Lords refused
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: International Journal of Mental Health and Capacity Law
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
