In the Matter of CM [A Ward of Court] (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns an application under section 55 of the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act 2015 ("the 2015 Act") regarding the capacity of the Respondent, a ward of court since July 2021. The Respondent, a widower born in 1935, currently resides in a community unit after a hospital stay earlier in 2023. The General Solicitor acts as committee of his person and estate. The application was initiated by motion on 23 February 2024, supported by an affidavit from a solicitor representing the committee, setting out the Respondent's background, health, living circumstances, and assets. Despite correspondence sent to the Respondent, his social worker, and his niece, no response was received. Medical and social reports were provided as part of the evidence. The court was tasked with determining whether the Respondent lacks capacity in certain decision-making areas and, if so, whether a co-decision-maker or decision-making representative ("DMR") should be appointed, and whether the Respondent should be discharged from wardship.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Respondent lacks capacity in relevant areas of decision-making under the 2015 Act.
2. If the Respondent lacks capacity, whether he can be assisted by a suitable co-decision-maker.
3. If no suitable co-decision-maker is available, whether a decision-making representative should be appointed and the Respondent discharged from wardship.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully considered the medical evidence provided by a consultant psychiatrist who assessed the Respondent's decision-making capacity across health, welfare, property, and financial affairs. The psychiatrist found cognitive impairments likely related to age, resulting in the Respondent lacking capacity for complex decisions, though he retained capacity for minor day-to-day choices. The psychiatrist recommended that the Respondent could work with a co-decision-maker despite past difficulties with family support. The court noted the Respondent's expressed preference for an independent co-decision-maker and the social worker's view that an independent professional would be more suitable than family members due to practical concerns. Given that no suitable co-decision-maker was available, the court proceeded under the relevant statutory provisions to discharge the Respondent from wardship and appoint a professional decision-making representative (DMR). The court emphasized the statutory obligation on the DMR to make decisions jointly with the Respondent as far as practicable, respecting his wishes and autonomy. The court also incorporated protective orders, including confidentiality provisions and financial management directions, and mandated a review of the Respondent's capacity within three years.

Holding and Implications

The court's final decision is that the Respondent lacks capacity unless assisted by a suitable co-decision-maker, but as no suitable co-decision-maker is available, the Respondent is discharged from wardship and a professional decision-making representative is appointed.

This decision directly affects the management of the Respondent's affairs by transferring authority from wardship to a DMR, consistent with the Respondent's expressed preferences. No new legal precedent was established; the ruling applies the statutory framework of the 2015 Act to the facts of this case.