Re MN

Mental health – Court of Protection. MN was severely disabled and had been living in an adult facility, RCH, which provided care funded by ACCG. MN's parents requested that ACCG fund a care package that enabled MN to visit his family home, and enabled his mother to become involved in his intimate care. ACCG refused, and sought an order from the Court of Protection that MN reside in accommodation and receive contact with his parents as directed by ACCG. The court held that it did not have jurisdiction to look at all potential options in a best interests analysis, but was limited to those available. Where a public body had breached Convention rights in the options it had made available, a challenge could be made under s 7(1)(b) of the Human Rights Act 1998. If that application was successful, it was in those exceptional circumstances that the court might look at other options. In the circumstances of the instant case, the contact plan submitted by ACCG was in MN's best interests.

Category: