Contrasting Decisions Concerning Vulnerable Adults Living With Parents In The Court Of Protection

The Court of Protection is dedicated to safeguarding individuals who lack capacity to make decisions for themselves. It makes critical determinations concerning a person’s property and financial affairs, such as appointing deputies to manage bank accounts, to sell or adapt property, and Health and Welfare matters, including living arrangements, care plans, and medical treatment choices.

Cases concerning a person’s living arrangements often revolve around a decision as to whether or not that person should remain living with their parents in the family home. In such cases, the Court is required to carefully assess whether continued cohabitation is within the adult’s best interests or whether alternative living solutions are needed. Its decisions always focus on preserving the person’s dignity, rights, and past wishes, ensuring that interventions aim to promote well‑being whilst minimizing restrictions on their autonomy.

Factors considered: Living with parents vs alternative care

When making a decision whether or not a vulnerable adult is to live with their parents, the Court of Protection will consider a number of factors to ensure the decisions prioritise the adult’s best interests; balancing safety, autonomy, and quality of life.

In support of living with parents, it is recognised that this allows stability, emotional support, and continuity for the vulnerable adult, particularly when strong family bonds exist, and parents can provide attentive care. It also preserves familiar routines and minimises disruption, which can be crucial for individuals with complex needs. However, there are arguments against continued living with parents. Parents may struggle to meet increasing care demands as they age, leading to risks of neglect or burnout. Living at home can also limit independence and social integration, potentially hindering personal development. In some cases, family dynamics may create safeguarding concerns, especially if conflicts begin to arise between them and the professionals.

There are two recent cases that demonstrate such decisions before the Court of Protection, each with a different outcome. The first is this case, which resulted in the Protected Party being removed from his father’s custody. EF is a 44-year-old man with Down’s Syndrome and severe kidney failure requiring regular dialysis and medication. EF had been assessed to lack the capacity to make decisions about his treatment and residence. Despite previous Court orders, EF repeatedly missed dialysis sessions and medication, largely due to his father’s influence arising from his refusal to accept EF’s condition. This non-compliance placed EF at risk of sudden death and serious complications. The Court of Protection were therefore required to decide whether EF should remain living with his father or be moved to a supported living placement, where professionals could ensure consistent dialysis and medication.

In light of the risks, the Court of Protection decided that EF should move from his father’s home to a supported living placement. This was necessary to ensure consistent dialysis and medication, as his life was at immediate risk due to chronic non-compliance. In making that decision, the Court also authorised EF’s deprivation of liberty and decided upon a structured transition plan. This case demonstrated that, due to the imminent health risks to EF, the Court of Protection took steps to remove EF from his father’s care.

In contrast, this case is a 30-year-old woman with epilepsy, atypical autism, and mild intellectual impairment. She has a history of absconding and substance misuse, exposing her to serious risks, including sexual harm and medical emergencies. SL lives with her parents under a comprehensive care package, including 1:1 support and various deprivation of liberty safeguards. The Local Authority applied to the Court of Protection seeking her transition to supported living, on the basis that they believed such arrangements would minimise the risks to SL.

On the other hand, SL’s mother submitted that the move would cause significant distress and heighten the risk of absconding, whilst remaining at home provided SL with familiarity and stability and placed the family in a position to provide support. The Court of Protection was therefore required to determine whether SL should remain living at home with her current care arrangements or be moved to an alternative placement in her best interests.

The Court of Protection concluded that it was in SL’s best interests to remain living at home with her parents under the existing care package, including deprivation of liberty safeguards. All parties agreed to a six-month pause on introducing new placements, allowing stability and respite planning while continuing efforts to promote SL’s independence and safety. In this case, the Court recognised the importance of the family’s involvement and support and proposed an approach to promote independence gradually over time.

Comment

Comparing these two cases confirms that the Court of Protection recognises the importance of a vulnerable adult’s family. As with all Court of Protection cases, when making a decision whether or not a person should remain living with their parents, it boils down to the Protected Person’s best interests. In the first case, EF remained at risk if he continued living with his father. On the other hand, in the second case, the Court noted the support offered by SL’s parents. In both cases, the Court of Protection assessed the risks and, in light of those, made a best interests decision on behalf of the Protected Party.