Breach Of Supervised Contact And Communication Orders

Background

In this case, the Court of Protection was recently invited to find the Defendant in contempt of Court. Norfolk County Council stated that the Defendant had breached undertakings given to the Judge on 17 January 2024 and breached an injunction made on a separate occasion.

The undertakings and injunction encompassed several terms that were alleged to have been breached by the Defendant.

In total, six allegations or grounds of breach were made. The sixth allegation was contested by the Defendant, in which the Court heard evidence from a witness of the local authority and read an affidavit along with other documents prepared by the Defendant. On the day of the hearing, this was then reduced to five allegations with the Defendant admitting to four of the breaches. The fifth alleged breach was withdrawn following the Defendant admitting to four.

Grounds one to four that were admitted by the Defendant related to the Defendant breaching undertakings given by her to the Court. One undertaking given by the Defendant was that her contact with the Protected Party would be supervised until further order and that she would not use insulting or threatening words or behaviour or say or do anything that would cause the Protected Party upset or distress. Following the Defendant making this undertaking, she questioned the Protected Party about a hospital appointment and mentioned what the Protected Party may be asked in a capacity assessment. This angered the Protected Party and resulted in her putting the phone down.

It was then reported that the Defendant caused the Protected Party distress by calling her a ‘silly woman’ and saying that ‘your bloody dementia has prevented you from remembering everything we have talked about in the last few months, it’s a bloody waste of my time’.

Further distress was caused by the Defendant when she questioned the Protected Party about a letter she had sent to her the night before, but the Protected Party was unable to remember.

The Defendant then made nine calls to the Protected Party on various dates in March and April 2024, following her giving an undertaking that contact would be supervised. These calls were not supervised, and the evidence showed that the Defendant had made sure these calls were not on loudspeaker.

Ground six that was contested by the Defendant and related to an injunctive order that included the term that the Defendant was not to lie to the Protected Party and a term that the Defendant shall not mention or threaten to send the Protected Party to a care home or to Switzerland. Norfolk County Council alleged that the Defendant breached the terms when she lied to the Protected Party and told her the local authority might take her to a care home.

In considering the actions of the Defendant, the judge applied the criminal standard to the proceedings and stated that before finding the Defendant in contempt of Court, they would have to be sure that she was in breach of the injunctions in the way alleged by the local authority.

The Defendant was ordered to pay a fine of £50 on each breach for grounds one to three and a £100 fine for ground four. The Judge then ordered that there would be a fine of £250 in relation to ground six. The total of the fines was £500 and were ordered to be paid within 14 days. No order was made for costs.

The above highlights the importance of the orders and undertakings made within the Court of Protection. When made, they should be followed as far as reasonably possible, and where they are deemed to no longer be fit for purpose or cannot be followed for some reason, then the issue should be referred back to a judge to deal with the order and undertakings as required.