Re P (2017) EWCOP B26


This case centred around the situation of where P should live.  P had lost capacity following a series of strokes and as a result had entered residential care.  Some of her family members wished her to be moved to the Midlands to be cared for by an ex-daughter in law, in the ex-daughter in law’s home.  However, other family members (E and S) objected to the move.  Their argument being was that if P moved then would not be able to visit her, and this would be distressing for her.

Judge Marston looked at the issue of best interests and what P would have wanted in considering her family history and former wishes.  It was made very clear that P would not have wanted to have been in a care home setting and would have preferred to be cared for by family.

Judge Marston stated that P would have “expected her family to look after her and not spend the rest of her life in a care home” and would have “expected her family to put together a plan to make her life as good as possible, even if this involved some sacrifice of personal comfort.”

He went onto say that it was in P’s best interest to be moved. He did put some conditions on the move, one of which was that a proposal for contact by E and S to be put together, however if E and S refused to take this up, then this was a matter for them.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCOP/2017/B26.html

(Author: Karon Walton)