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

Factual and Procedural Background

The case concerns a young man, hereafter referred to as the Respondent, who is currently residing temporarily in the United Kingdom to receive specialist medical treatment unavailable in his home jurisdiction. Due to the complexity and seriousness of his condition, he was admitted to minor wardship in October 2020 to facilitate treatment in England, with the general solicitor for minors and wards of court appointed as guardian. Following his attainment of majority, the Health Service Executive (H.S.E.) initiated proceedings under the court's inherent jurisdiction to ensure his continued placement, detention, and care abroad. These proceedings are ongoing, with the Respondent represented by a guardian ad litem. The Respondent's parents, who are estranged, have been actively involved in the proceedings.

The current application concerns the Respondent's discharge from wardship under the Assisted Decision-Making Capacity Act 2015 (the "2015 Act") and the appointment of a decision-making representative (DMR) to manage his personal welfare and property affairs. Medical evidence, including a functional capacity assessment, indicates the Respondent lacks capacity in these areas even with assistance. The Respondent has expressed a clear preference for both his parents to act jointly as his DMRs. However, the estranged parents disagree on this appointment, prompting the court's involvement.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Respondent lacks capacity in personal welfare and property and affairs decision-making under the 2015 Act, justifying discharge from wardship and appointment of a DMR.
2. Whether the Respondent's expressed wish to have both parents appointed jointly as DMRs can be given effect despite the parents' estrangement and disagreement.
3. The scope and limits of the DMR's role in light of ongoing inherent jurisdiction proceedings concerning the Respondent's care and placement abroad.
4. The appropriate appointment of a DMR given the conflicting interests and eligibility concerns of the Respondent's parents.

Arguments of the Parties

Respondent's Father (Appellant)

• Expresses the view that the Respondent is not fully aware of the complexities and difficulties between the parents.
• Contends that due to a personal insolvency arrangement, he is currently ineligible to act as DMR, given the financial responsibilities involved.
• Advocates for the appointment of an independent person from the Decision Support Service (DSS) panel as DMR instead of either parent.
• Prefers the inherent jurisdiction proceedings to continue undisturbed, with the guardian ad litem continuing to represent the Respondent.

Respondent's Mother (Appellee)

• Seeks appointment as sole DMR for both personal welfare and property and affairs decision-making.
• Emphasizes her close involvement as primary caregiver, including daily videocalls, weekly multidisciplinary team meetings, and intimate knowledge of the Respondent's needs.
• Disputes the father's claim to be joint primary carer and challenges assertions regarding financial arrangements.
• Relies on clinical recommendations supporting the appointment of family members as DMRs.
• Opposes the appointment of an independent panel member as DMR.

Health Service Executive (H.S.E.) and Clinicians

• Support the appointment of both parents jointly as DMRs, in line with the Respondent's expressed wishes.
• Recommend family members as DMRs rather than an independent professional.
• Confirm that the inherent jurisdiction proceedings will continue with the guardian ad litem representing the Respondent, separate from the DMR role.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by recognizing the Respondent's clear and repeated wish to have both parents appointed jointly as his DMRs. However, the estrangement and disagreement between the parents made it impossible to give effect to this preference. The court noted that both parents are actively involved in the Respondent's care and love him dearly, but their inability to reach consensus was a significant factor.

The court considered the parents' respective positions, including the father's claimed ineligibility due to a personal insolvency arrangement, which was clarified as not currently applicable, and the mother's desire to act as sole DMR. The court rejected the proposition that one parent should be preferred over the other in the absence of mutual agreement, emphasizing the importance of preserving relationships and avoiding increased discord that could negatively affect the Respondent.

The court acknowledged that significant personal welfare decisions will continue to be governed by the inherent jurisdiction proceedings, and the DMR's role will be limited to matters outside those proceedings. Given the Respondent's limited financial assets, the property and affairs role is expected to be limited.

Balancing these considerations, the court determined that appointing an independent DMR from the DSS panel would best serve the Respondent's interests by providing an impartial decision-maker and avoiding exacerbation of familial conflict. The court highlighted the nominee's qualifications and expertise in mental health law and advocacy for vulnerable persons.

Holding and Implications

The court DISPOSED OF the application by:

• Declaring pursuant to s. 55(1)(b)(ii) of the 2015 Act that the Respondent lacks capacity in personal welfare and property and affairs decision-making, even with assistance.
• Discharging the Respondent from wardship under s. 55(5)(b) and remitting management of his affairs to a suitable DMR.
• Appointing an independent person from the DSS panel, Ms. Sinead Maguire, as DMR for both personal welfare and property and affairs decision-making.
• Authorizing the DMR to take custody, control, and management of any assets held in the relevant account and to liaise with the Department of Social Protection regarding disability benefits.
• Ordering that the DMR account to the director of the DSS and that no reimbursement or remuneration is payable from the Respondent's assets.
• Providing that the Respondent's capacity be reviewed by the Circuit Court within one year.

The decision ensures that the Respondent's expressed wishes are respected as far as possible while safeguarding his welfare by appointing an impartial DMR. It avoids exacerbating parental conflict and preserves the ongoing inherent jurisdiction proceedings. No new legal precedent was established; the ruling focuses on the specific facts and statutory framework applicable to the Respondent's care and decision-making capacity.