CoP evicts abusive son to secure P's autonomy - Francesca Gardner represented P by her litigation friend the Official Solicitor

In https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCOP/2021/22.html, Francesca Gardner represented P (by her litigation friend, the Official Solicitor). In this case the court took the significant and serious step of granting injunctive orders, removing P's son from her property, having found that he was subjecting her to controlling and abusive behaviour. The court found that it was necessary and in P's best interests for her son to be removed from the property (where he too resided and cared for her), and for his contact with her to be restricted as a result of his behaviour. The court found that as a result of her son's behaviour, P was deprived of her basic rights, she was prevented from seeing her family or medical professionals, she was prevented from leaving the house and she was subjected to 24 hour surveillance as video recording equipment was placed all around the property. The court was also concerned for her immediate safety as the evidence before it suggested that her son would leave her unaccompanied for periods of time, whilst only being able to observe her over the video surveillance.

The court acknowledged that the orders sought were draconian in nature and in balancing P's son's Article 8 rights, Cohen J said as follows: 'It is common ground, as I have already mentioned, that above all GA would want to stay in the home in which she has lived for some time. I am sure she would want to receive appropriate medical treatment and medication. She would want to be able to see her doctor. She would want, for example, to receive treatment for the pain she demonstrated she was suffering on 26 and 27 January. She would want to see her children, all of them, and her grandchildren. That is what she said. She would want to be cared for by women. She would want care and stimulation. All these are very much in her interests. I am sure also that she would want to be cared for by those who know her and from whom she is used to receiving care.'

The court made orders for the immediate of vacation of P's son from the property, the orders prohibit him from going within 100 yards of the property. The court also made injunctions restricting and regulating his contact with the local authority and professionals in the case, the court having made earlier orders restricting the his contact with the Court after an extremely high volume of applications and correspondence had been received by court staff: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCOP/2021/3.html

This case demonstrates the extent of the powers of the Court of Protection and the lengths that the court can and will go to, to protect P from harm and to ensure that, as far as is possible P's autonomy is respected and promoted.