Court Of Protection Grants Injunctive Relief Against Family Of Protected Party As A Result Of Intimidation Of Medical Staff

The Court of Protection has recently decided to grant injunctive relief against the family of a vulnerable young woman (G) in order to establish clear boundaries and manage the family’s challenging behaviour.

Background

G is a 27-year-old woman who suffers from a rare and profound degenerative neurological condition. She has spent most of her adolescence and the entirety of her adulthood permanently residing in a children’s hospital. She has significantly outlived her life expectancy due to the round-the-clock care and support from medical experts and family.

The decision as to where G should live was considered by the Court of Protection in December 2021. Whilst G’s parents sought to remove her from the children’s hospital and to the family home, the Judge ordered that it was in G’s best interests to initially be transferred to a specialist care home as a ‘step down’ measure. This decision was made on the basis that an immediate move from a hospital to a home setting would be medically inappropriate and unsafe for G and ‘step down’ arrangements were integral to G being cared for at home in the future.

Following the Court’s decision, G was not moved to the care home as planned. Those involved in G’s care attributed this to G’s father (LF)’s lack of compliance and deliberate plans to sabotage the move from taking place. The concerns around LF’s challenging behaviour were summarised as follows:

LF’s mother also contacted a media consultant to orchestrate a press release about the care home in a bid to “get G home”.

Medical staff at the NHS Trust became concerned as to how LF’s behaviour could undermine their ability to properly care for G and so applied to the Court for injunctive orders.

Injunctive relief

In making a decision, the Judge considered anonymous evidence from a number of nurses involved in G’s care. Nursing staff reported feeling undermined and intimidated by LF, feeling a sense of fear and dread and extremely anxious when looking after G due to LF’s behaviour. In fact, some 30 nurses took up an offer to receive support sessions due to feeling vulnerable and intimidated as a result of LF’s behaviour.

Whilst LF sought to argue that the nursing staff were exaggerating and fabricating false evidence against him, the Judge dismissed those arguments and concluded that injunctive relief was entirely necessary and in the best interests of G.

The Judge stated that there was no rational or coherent reason why so many nurses would come forward to give false evidence about LF’s behaviour. Furthermore, LF’s responses to the nursing evidence were entirely lacking in credibility.

It was stated that LF’s “actions were a deliberate attempt to sabotage the placement and to undermine the confidence of the staff” but it was recognised that his behaviour, albeit inappropriate, was generated by his love for his daughter.

The scope of the injunction granted was to:

At the time of this judgment, it had been 8 years since G was deemed medically fit for discharge from the children’s hospital and the Judge stated that:

Comment

In making this decision, the Judge made a vital distinction between incapacitated children and incapacitated adults. He emphasised the importance of independently establishing and maintaining the dignity of an adult Protected Party in a suitable environment.

The circumstances of this case are unfortunate but rendered it wholly necessary for the Judge to take the serious step of ordering injunctive relief against G’s family. The decision reached by the Judge will not have been taken lightly but shows how important it is for family and carers to work together to act in the best interests of the Protected Party. An irretrievable breakdown in the relationship between the family and clinicians can in itself compromise the welfare of a Protected Party, at which point the only option is for the Court to step in.