N [A Ward of Court], Re (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns an application pursuant to section 55 of the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act 2015 (as amended) regarding a respondent who is a ward of court. The respondent was admitted to Wardship in 2020 and has expressed a wish to leave Wardship but has declined to engage with the discharge process despite encouragement. The respondent currently resides in a care Unit and has a history of breakdowns in prior placements. Multiple consultant psychiatrists have assessed the respondent and concluded that he lacks capacity to make decisions in relation to his personal welfare and property and affairs. The respondent's Committee initiated the application for discharge from Wardship and for the appointment of a Decision-Making Representative (DMR) to manage his affairs. The court considered medical and social work reports, including evidence from mental health professionals and the Health Service Executive (HSE), and noted the respondent's refusal to engage with the process.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the respondent lacks capacity to make decisions regarding his personal welfare and property and affairs under the 2015 Act.
2. Whether it is appropriate to discharge the respondent from Wardship and appoint a Decision-Making Representative under section 55 of the 2015 Act.
3. The suitability of the nominated Decision-Making Representative to manage the respondent's affairs in accordance with the statutory requirements, including sections 8(7), 8(8), 42, 46, and 55 of the 2015 Act.
4. The procedural validity of proceeding with the application despite the respondent's refusal to engage, pursuant to section 139 of the 2015 Act.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments (Respondent's Committee)

• The respondent lacks capacity to make decisions in all spheres of his life, supported by uncontroverted medical evidence from two consultant psychiatrists.
• A Decision-Making Representative should be appointed to manage the respondent's personal welfare and property and affairs, with obligations under ss. 8(7) and (8) of the 2015 Act to facilitate the respondent's input and consider views of interested parties.
• The respondent has declined to engage in the process, including the choice of a DMR, but it is appropriate to proceed in light of s.139 of the 2015 Act.
• The nominated DMR, a social worker with extensive experience in neurodiversity and person-centred care, is suitably qualified to act in this role.
• There is no known Enduring Power of Attorney or Advanced Healthcare Directive.
• The respondent’s assets should be managed by the DMR with appropriate court oversight and accounting to the Director of the Decision Support Service.
• The DMR should not be entitled to reimbursement or remuneration from the respondent’s assets, given the panel appointment status.
• The respondent’s capacity should be reviewed by the Circuit Court no later than three years from the date of the order.

Respondent's Position

• The respondent has chosen not to participate or engage with the discharge and DMR appointment process, despite encouragement.
• The respondent has expressed a wish to leave Wardship.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully considered the evidence presented, including affidavits, medical assessments, and social work reports. The court accepted the uncontested medical evidence that the respondent lacks capacity to make decisions about his personal welfare and property and affairs, even with assistance. The court noted the respondent’s refusal to engage but found that proceeding was justified under section 139 of the 2015 Act, ensuring no injustice arises. The court emphasized the statutory obligations under sections 8(7) and (8) requiring the DMR to encourage the respondent's participation and consider the views of those with a bona fide interest in his welfare. The nominated DMR’s background and experience were deemed appropriate to meet the respondent's needs, particularly given the respondent’s autism spectrum disorder and the multidisciplinary team’s recommendation. The court balanced the statutory framework, the respondent’s expressed wishes, and the evidence of capacity to justify discharging the respondent from Wardship and appointing the DMR with specified powers and oversight.

Holding and Implications

The court DISPOSED OF the application by ordering the formal discharge of the respondent from Wardship and appointing a suitable Decision-Making Representative to manage his personal welfare and property and affairs under the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act 2015. The DMR was authorized to receive and manage the respondent’s assets with court oversight and to receive relevant social welfare payments. The DMR was appointed without entitlement to remuneration or expenses from the respondent’s assets. The respondent’s capacity is to be reviewed by the Circuit Court within three years. No order for costs was made. This decision directly affects the management of the respondent’s affairs and reflects his expressed wish to leave Wardship; however, no new legal precedent was established.