LexisLibrary and LexisPSL
Sign up for a free trial today and get full access for a weekTrial
(Court of Protection; 22 October 2010; Charles J)
An 80 year old Alzheimer's sufferer, who had been living with her husband of 56 years, was removed from his care because of concerns about his methods of dealing with her which included allegations of assault. She was placed in a residential home but during her stay the woman became increasingly ill and distressed. A best interests assessor determined that the women's deprivation of liberty was not in her best interests.
At issue was the validity of the standard deprivation of liberty authorisation.
The Court provided guidance on the applicability of deprivation of liberty authorisations. The period of authorisation begins at the exact time when it was given on a particular day. It would be good practice to record the actual time at which an urgent authorisation was given on the form recording its grant and, in any event, a record of that exact time should be kept. But failure to include precise time could not be said to render the authorisation ineffective. The calculation of the maximum period of 7 days for an urgent authorisation should be calculated by including the whole day on which the authorisation was given and ends at the end of the last day.
Family Law Reports are relied upon by the judiciary, barristers and solicitors and the reports are cited daily in court and in judgments.
They contain verbatim case reports of every important Family Division, Court of Appeal, House of Lords and European courts case, and also includes practice directions, covering the whole range of family law, public and private child law.
This work provides commentary, checklists, procedural guides and precedents on the subject in a...