Background

The case of MA & AA, Re (Re Section 21A of the Mental Capacity Act 2005) [2023] EWCOP 65 concerned an 84 year old woman who was diagnosed with dementia (MA) and an 89 year old man who has been diagnosed with dementia, epilepsy, heart disease and cerebrovascular hypertension (AA). MA and AA are husband and wife and had been married for 63 years. Following their diagnoses, the parties were moved into the same care home. In due course, this care home could no longer meet the needs of MA, and therefore she was moved to a different placement.

A plan was then made to reintroduce contact between MA and AA via telephone, video call and then in person. After only two in person contact sessions, the local authority issued a COP9 application to end all contact, by any means, between MA and AA on the grounds of distress and the risks posed by MA to AA at the end of contact sessions. This application was strongly opposed by MA, and the judge was asked to decide on future care and residence, whether were to be any further attempts at contact and whether a removal of contact represented a breach of rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Considerations of the Judge

The Judge considered various issues surrounding the case including care and residence, contact, declaration, the positions of the parties and the law, including capacity and best interests. The Judge also reviewed the case of HH v Hywel Dda University Health Board & Ors [2023] EWCOP 18 which set out how the Court should proceed in a situation involving two Protected Parties where the best interests decisions are interconnected.

The options available on behalf of MA were;

• MA remaining at placement 2 and AA remaining at placement 1; or
• MA remaining at placement 2 and AA residing at placement 3.

Decision

The Judge stated that ‘it is universally accepted that the starting point in this matter is that wherever possible, a husband and wife should have contact with each other’ but the evidence shows, sadly, AA no longer recognises MA. Given this analysis, he decides he had ‘not found any evidence that the respondents have acted in a way which is disproportionate and incompatible with a convention right.’ Therefore, it was concluded that due to MA’s erratic behaviour during face-to-face contact and AA’s lack of interest in video meetings, it was determined to be in both AA and MA’s best interests that they each remain at their current placements and for them to not have any form of contact at this stage.

You can find out more about our services here or you can contact the Costs and Litigation Funding team at costs.support@clarionsolicitors.com