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

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns an application brought under section 55 of the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act 2015 ("the 2015 Act") regarding the discharge of the Respondent from wardship. The Respondent, a single gentleman in his 50s diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder, was admitted to wardship in June 2007. Since July 2019, the General Solicitor has acted as committee of his person and estate. The Respondent currently resides in a group home under the care of the Health Service Executive (HSE) and has lived there since 2021. The application was initiated by the committee via a motion issued on 24 August 2023, supported by an affidavit from an officer of the General Solicitor's Office setting out the Respondent's diagnosis, living situation, assets, and needs. Correspondence about leaving wardship was sent to relevant parties, including the Respondent, his clinical nurse manager, and his sister, but no replies were received.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Respondent lacks capacity to make decisions regarding health, personal welfare, and property and affairs;
2. If lacking capacity, whether the Respondent could make such decisions with the assistance of a suitable co-decisionmaker;
3. Whether the Respondent should be discharged from wardship pursuant to section 55 of the 2015 Act.

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 considered medical evidence from a consultant psychiatrist who assessed the Respondent in January 2024. The psychiatrist reported that while the Respondent can communicate decisions regarding healthcare and treatment, he lacks the ability to understand, retain, or weigh relevant information about his schizophrenia treatment. Regarding welfare and supports for activities of daily living, the Respondent is essentially independent but lives in a supportive environment and does not demonstrate understanding of self-care issues. On property and finances, the Respondent’s awareness is superficial, and he lacks the capacity to meaningfully manage these matters.

The psychiatrist concluded that the Respondent lacks capacity even with the assistance of a suitable co-decisionmaker. This medical evidence was uncontroverted as no second opinion was sought and no challenge was made to the psychiatrist's views.

The Court also reviewed social work evidence confirming the Respondent’s satisfaction with his current living arrangements and positive relationships with staff. The Respondent expressed a preference for no family member to act as decision-making representative (DMR) and instead requested an independent advocate. Given no suitable DMR was identified by the Respondent, the Court approved the nomination of an experienced solicitor as DMR.

Based on this evidence, the Court made a declaration under section 55(1)(b)(ii) of the 2015 Act that the Respondent lacks capacity to make decisions in the relevant areas even with assistance, and ordered his discharge from wardship with management of his affairs transferred to the appointed DMR.

Holding and Implications

The Court's final decision is to declare that the Respondent lacks capacity to make decisions regarding health, personal welfare, and property and affairs even with the assistance of a suitable co-decisionmaker, and to discharge him from wardship pursuant to section 55 of the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act 2015.

The decision results in the appointment of an independent solicitor as the Respondent's decision-making representative (DMR) to manage his affairs with obligations to involve the Respondent as far as possible and consider views of carers and healthcare professionals. The Respondent is authorized to receive his assets, with the DMR accountable to the Decision Support Service. The Court also ordered a review of the Respondent’s capacity within three years. No costs order was made, and no new precedent was established. The ruling ensures protection of the Respondent’s interests while recognizing his current supportive environment and preference for an independent advocate.