In The Matter of Ms. AB (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns an application made under the Lunacy Regulation (Ireland) Act 1871 ("the 1871 Act") to take the Respondent into wardship. The application was initiated by three of the Respondent's six adult children (Applicants) and opposed by the Respondent's son (Opposing Party), with whom she resides. The Respondent, born in 1932 and residing in Dublin, suffered a serious brain injury in 2017 after being struck by a bin lorry, resulting in significant cognitive decline and memory loss. Prior to the accident, she was active and independent. Following discharge from hospital, concerns arose about her care and welfare, including allegations of neglect and restricted contact with family members.

Procedurally, the Court appointed a medical visitor to assess the Respondent's mental capacity and condition. Medical reports were obtained, and an inquiry was ordered into the Respondent's soundness of mind. The Respondent was served with notice of the inquiry and the application. The Opposing Party sought to oppose and adjourn the inquiry to file further evidence, which was permitted. Written submissions were made by the Applicants, and oral submissions were heard from both sides at the adjourned hearing.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Respondent is of unsound mind and incapable of managing her person and property within the meaning of the 1871 Act.
2. Whether it is in the best interests of the Respondent to be admitted into wardship.
3. The relevance and effect of an existing Enduring Power of Attorney (EPA) executed by the Respondent in 2019 on the application for wardship.
4. Who is the appropriate person or entity to be appointed as committee of the Respondent's person and estate.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicants' Arguments

• The medical evidence clearly establishes that the Respondent lacks capacity and is of unsound mind.
• Wardship is necessary and proportionate to protect the Respondent’s personal and financial interests, ensuring she receives medical treatment and proper care.
• The Respondent’s financial affairs are not properly managed; the Opposing Party has taken money from her account without explanation.
• The Respondent has been inadequately cared for, isolated from most family members, and medical appointments have been neglected.
• The EPA does not cover personal care decisions and is insufficient to address the Respondent’s welfare needs.
• The Opposing Party is unsuitable to act as attorney or committee due to concerns about his management and conduct.
• Any application to register the EPA should be deferred until further enquiries are made under the Powers of Attorney Act 1996.

Opposing Party's Arguments

• Does not dispute the medical evidence that the Respondent lacks capacity but argues wardship is too strong a measure.
• Claims to have cared for the Respondent for five years and is best placed to address her needs.
• The Respondent strongly wishes to avoid institutional care.
• The existence of the EPA, executed by the Respondent, should weigh against wardship.
• The current arrangements could be modified if necessary without resorting to wardship.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court first considered the medical evidence, which was unambiguous that the Respondent suffers from a neurocognitive disorder (dementia of mixed origin) and is of unsound mind under the statutory test, unable to manage her affairs. Both medical experts concurred, and the Opposing Party agreed with this assessment.

The Court then applied its discretion to determine whether wardship was in the Respondent’s best interests. It found that the Respondent’s financial affairs were mismanaged, with unexplained withdrawals by the Opposing Party. The Respondent's personal care was inadequate: medical treatment was neglected, social isolation was severe, and family contact was restricted. The Court noted the Opposing Party’s ill health limited his capacity to provide necessary 24-hour care.

Regarding the EPA, the Court acknowledged its existence but emphasized it did not cover personal care decisions and was insufficient to meet the Respondent’s comprehensive needs. The Court treated the EPA as valid for the purpose of this decision but declined to consider its validity or registration, which are separate matters. The Court noted statutory provisions allowing discretion in the interaction between wardship and EPA but found no reason to delay wardship in this urgent case.

On the appointment of a committee, the Court rejected appointing the Opposing Party due to serious deficits in care and ongoing family conflict. Instead, the Court appointed the General Solicitor as committee to ensure impartial management and facilitate family access.

Holding and Implications

The Court ADMITTED the Respondent into wardship and APPOINTED the General Solicitor as committee of the person and estate.

The decision directly establishes protective measures for the Respondent’s personal care and financial management under the supervision of the Court. It allows for future applications regarding specific decisions affecting the Respondent. The Court did not set new legal precedent but applied existing statutory principles to the facts before it. The EPA’s registration remains a separate matter to be addressed after wardship is determined.