The Mental Capacity Act 2005

The Relationship between the Children Act 1989 and the Mental Capacity Act 2005

What happens for children aged 16-18 in care proceedings who lack capacity?

The question of what is meant by capacity is dealt with in another post which looks at the MCA 2005 more generally. 

The MCA is intended to apply to adults who lack capacity – decisions about children should be resolved under the Children Act 1989.  A ‘child’ is a person aged under 18 years. However, it is clear that a number of provisions in the Children Act do not apply to children aged between 16-18 or apply only in ‘exceptional circumstances’.  A care order is one of these.

This reflects the growing autonomy of the ‘neuro-typical’ teenager who is highly likely to be ‘Gillick competent’ by the age of 16 years and thus able to make his or her own decisions about everything other than the most serious matters (refusal of life saving medical treatment for e.g.)

But what happens when you are dealing with a teenager who isn’t ‘neuro-typical’? Section 2(5) of the MCA 2005 provides that the powers of this Act apply in general only to people who are older than 16 years.  But sections 2(6) and 18(3) provide that powers under the Act could be exercised about property and financial affairs for a child whose lack of capacity would continue into adulthood.

If it is not a question of managing property or finances, section 21 of the MCA allows for transfer to and from the Court of Protection and the Family Court. Paragraph 3 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (Transfer of Proceedings) Order 2007 allows a court having jurisdiction under the Children Act to direct all or some of the proceedings in the family court to the Court of Protection where ‘in all the circumstances it is just and convenient to transfer the proceedings’.

Paragraph 3(2) sets out what the Family Court must think about:

  • whether the proceedings should be heard together with any other proceedings that are pending in the Court of Protection
  • whether any order that may be made by the Court of Protection is likely to be a more appropriate way of dealing with proceedings
  • the extent to which any order made about a child is likely to continue to have effect when the child is 18
  • Any other relevant factors

Help in understanding what could be another a ‘relevant factor’ is found in the judgment of Hedley J in the case of B (A Local Authority) v RM, MM, and AM [2010] EWHC 3802 (Fam). He posed the following questions:

  • Is the child over 16 years old – the MCA can’t apply otherwise
  • Does the child clearly lack capacity to understand the main decisions in the Children Act proceedings
  • Is this lack of capacity due to life long or at least long term disabilities
  • Can all the decisions that need to be made about the child’s welfare be resolved during the child’s minority?
  • Are the powers of the Court of Protection more appropriate to resolve problems that the powers under the Children Act
  • Can the child’s welfare needs be fully met by the Court of Protection

Continued involvement of the Children’s Guardian

A further practical consideration is that transferring a case from the Family Court to the Court of Protection is likely to lead to the children’s guardian dropping out of proceedings, unless the Official Solicitor (who would then represent the child) agreeing to re-instruct the guardian as an independent social worker. This would clearly be a pretty cumbersome procedure. There will also be implications for continuing public funding for the parents if the matter transfers entirely to the Court of Protection; their continued ability to benefit from legal aid will be subject to a means and merits test.

A solution to this problem would be to continue the care proceedings but at the final hearing, adopt the approach set out in Re B above and ask the Judge to also sit as a Court of Protection judge in order to make the appropriate declarations about the child’s capacity and any orders under section 16 of the MCA to promote the child’s welfare.

 

Further Reading

What does ‘Best Interests’ mean in the Mental Capacity Act 2005?

 

How do we make decisions for people who can’t make them for themselves?

There are very many reasons why a person may lack capacity. This can be a condition present from birth or as a result of an accident. It can be enduring or it can be intermittent. All these circumstances will inform a decision about what is in the best interests of the person lacking capacity at any given time.

How to make decisions for people who lack capacity is particularly difficult when a person has an enduring lack of capacity and there is little evidence about their wishes and feelings. Theses cases raise the starkest issues around what ‘best interests’ should really mean. This is particularly so when we examine the extent to which ‘substituted judgment’ still forms part of the decision making process.

 

Different ways we can make decisions for people or ourselves

Advance decisions – MCA section 24 – 26

It is possible to set out your wishes when you still have capacity with regard to refusing medical treatment.  But this is a very limited field; it only applies to a decision made in advance to refuse treatment; it does not give you the right to demand any other form of care.

Lasting power of attorney – MCA section 9

If you are over 18 and have capacity at that time, you can choose someone who will make decisions for you, should you lose capacity in the future. This person then has authority to make decisions about your personal welfare and property affairs. taking into account your wishes but making a decision using the best interests framework.

You can also make a written statement about your wishes and feelings which would be considered as part of the best interests decision making process but which would not have any legal authority.

 

Decision making before the MCA

Parens patriae and substituted judgment

Until 1959  the ancient doctrine of ‘parens patriae’ set out the legal basis for making decision on behalf of incapacitated adults. It means ‘the parent of the country’ and conferred on the Crown a power to protect the person and property of those who could not protect themselves.  The exercise of this power transferred from the Crown to the chancery courts in the seventeenth century.  It is not easy to discern how this power was exercised in early cases, but it is clear that the focus was meant to be on protecting the person who lacked capacity.

The Mental Health Act of 1959 abolished this jurisdiction. Unfortunately the new Act provided a framework for decisions to be made about financial matters, but did not set out how to deal with welfare issues, such as decisions about medical treatment.

The House of Lords in Re F [1990] 2 AC 1 decided that the way round this was to invoke the inherent jurisdiction and the doctrine of necessity to make declarations regarding the lawfulness of proposed medical interventions for those who lack capacity.  However, that does not deal with the cases where ‘necessity’ is not the issue but a choice needs to be made between competing welfare aims.

Substituted judgment

‘Substituted judgment’ is one way of making decisions, by trying to make the choice that the person would have made, if they had the capacity to do so.

The test of ‘substituted judgment’ was part of the parens patriae jurisdiction with regard to financial/property issues, a landmark decision being that of Re Hinde in 1816 where Lord Eldon argued that the Court ‘looking at what it is likely the Lunatic himself would do, if he were in a capacity to act, will make some provision out of the estate for those persons.’

However, the obvious criticism of this method of decision-making is the enormous difficulty in trying to make a decision that a person ‘would have made’ if that person has never been competent and never expressed a view. Not only can that lead to contorted ‘reasoning’ but there is a clear danger is that it is instead the views of the decision maker, which will come to the fore, such views being formed by all the prejudice and assumptions of that person.  This is particularly dangerous if the decision maker has some personal investment in any particular outcome.

 

The view of the Law Commission

The Law Commission Consultation Paper No. 119 (1991) (Mentally Incapacitated Adults and Decision-Making: An Overview) considered the ‘best interests’ and the ‘substituted judgment’ tests as two conceptually distinct standards. Not only is there is a different historical development and scope of application between the two tests, but also the ‘best interests test is ‘more paternalistic and restrictive’ and emphasizing what the decision maker thinks is objectively best for the patient.

The Law Commission preferred the ‘best interests test’ due to the difficulties inherent in substituted judgement but recognized that the ‘distinction between the two tests may be little more than a matter of language.’

 

Example from case law – ‘best interests’ before the MCA

Re A (medical treatment: male sterilisation) [2000] 1 FLR 259.

This case involved a 28 man who had Down’s syndrome and a severe impairment of his intelligence.  He was cared for by his mother who made an application under the inherent jurisdiction hat he should have a vasectomy despite his inability to consent to the operation. This was in case he had a sexual relationship that would result in the birth of a child, as he could not understand the implications of this. A was sexually aware and the mother was conscious that given her age and health she would not be able to provide him with care for much longer and he would have to go into institutional care. She was worried about what would happen once he was no longer subject to her close supervision.

The court at first instance refused to permit this so the mother appealed saying that a vasectomy should be seen as ‘fool proof’ contraception and that was of benefit to A which outweighed the risks of a surgical procedure.

The Court of Appeal carried out a close analysis of the ‘best interests’ of A and considered that:

  • The concept of best interests is not limited to best medical interests, but includes medical, emotional and all other welfare issues.
  • A’s freedom would not be more restricted if he did retain his fertility, he would still be under close supervision.
  • A vasectomy would not reduce the risk that A could be exploited or contact a STI.
  • The issue of the impact of pregnancy upon his mother or the woman who was pregnant was not a relevant consideration in terms of his best interests, as his relationship with his mother would continue. The birth of a child or anyone disapproving of his conduct was not going to impinge on him.
  • The operation would cause him risk and discomfort.

Thorpe LJ set out guidance on how to evaluate what is in an individual’s best interests. He said that it is ‘akin to a welfare appraisal’ and that the judge should draw up a balance sheet. The balance sheet should consider the benefits and disbenefits of the decision and the likelihood of each occurring.

Pending the enactment of a checklist or other statutory direction it seems to me that the first instance judge with the responsibility to make an evaluation of the best interests of a claimant lacking capacity should draw up a balance sheet.  The first entry should be of any factor or factors of actual benefit.  In the present case the instance would be the acquisition of foolproof contraception.  Then on the other sheet the judge should write any counterbalancing dis-benefits to the applicant

I suggest this approach only because Sumner J’s judgment in the present case seems to me to concentrate too much on the evaluation of risks of happenings, some of which seem to me at best hypothetical. A risk is no more than a possibility of loss and should have no more emphasis in the exercise than the evaluation of the possibility of gain.

This case is a useful demonstration of the dangers inherent in ‘substituted judgment’ as it was clear from the mother’s evidence that she was also motivated by a profound distaste for the idea that anyone should have sex without being married. Issues around disabled people enjoying their sexuality are often very difficult for many people to contemplate and it is not hard to see how those inherent prejudices could infect any attempt by a decision maker to work out what was in the best interests of the particular individual.

 

Mental Capacity Act 2005 approach to best interests

Therefore, those drafting the Mental Capacity Act plainly rejected the notion of ‘substituted judgment’ and took on board Thorpe LJ’s hope of a statutory checklist.

The Act requires decision-makers to consider the views and preferences of the person who lacks capacity. However, section 4(6)(a) of the Act makes it clear that it is only one of the factors to be taken into account because some people have simply never been in the position to express any views about the issue to be decided.

The Act is designed to direct the focus away from the personal views of the decision maker and direct attention to both the current and future interests of the person who lacks capacity.

Section 1 of the MCA sets out that an act done, or decision made, under this Act for or on behalf of a person who lacks capacity must be done, or made, in his best interests and before the act is done, or the decision is made, regard must be had to whether the purpose for which it is needed can be as effectively achieved in a way that is less restrictive of the person’s rights and freedom of action.”

The Act does not attempt a definition of best interests – which is certainly impossible given the infinitely variable circumstances, which can arise. Instead, section 4 sets out a framework for making a decision in someone’s best interests.

You should consider ‘all relevant circumstances’ which is defined under section 4(11) as those which the person making the determination is aware, and which it would be reasonable to regard as relevant.  The statute provides further guidance about what is likely to be a ‘relevant circumstance’, such as whether it is likely that the person will have capacity at some time and when that time is likely to be.

You must so far as is reasonably practicable permit and encourage the person to participate or improve his ability to participate as fully as possible in the decision making process.

If you are considering life sustaining treatment you must not be motivated by a desire to bring about the person’s death.

You must consider so far as is reasonably ascertainable;

  • The person’s past and present wishes and feelings, in particular whether there is a previous written statement made when he had capacity
  • The person’s beliefs and values that would be likely to influence his decision if he had capacity

The Act is also clear about what is NOT a relevant circumstance. Under section 4 (1) (a) and (b). You cannot make a best interests determination merely on the basis of:

  • The persons age or appearance
  • A condition of his, or an aspect of his behaviour, which might lead others to make unjustified assumptions about what might be in his best interests.

Under section 4(7), you must take into account, if practicable and appropriate to consult them, the views of anyone the person identified as someone who ought to be consulted and anyone who is caring for the person or interested in their welfare, which includes anyone with a power of attorney and any deputy appointed by the court.

 

Recent Case Law on Best Interests

The reality is however, that we simply can’t escape an element of substituted judgment in those cases where we have no evidence about the wishes and feelings of the incapacitous person – either because they have never been capable of expressing the same or have never expressed an opinion on the issue in question prior to becoming incapacitous.

In Re X,Y and Z [2014] EWHC 87 (COP) is a neat illustration of how to examine ‘best interests’ when we have little or no idea what P would say about the situation. In this case a mother of three children had suffered a RTA that left her profoundly disabled and with an altered personality. This lead to the children suffering serious emotional harm whilst living in the same household with her and the LA decided that this situation could no longer endure and the children should go into foster care.

All agreed that it would be the best outcome for the children if their current nanny could be that foster carer; all agreed she was doing an excellent job, the children were attached to her and there would be no risk of splitting up the sibling group.

However, the mother’s situation was dire; the money awarded to her for her care after her RTA was running out and she had a normal life expectancy. This was a problem because the nanny was requesting a salary on top of the foster care allowances the LA would pay. Without a salary the nanny would no longer be able to pay into her pension or maintain her own flat which made her prospects on retirement look bleak.

The mother’s deputy thus argued that it was not in the mother’s best interests to secure the services of this nanny, as it would lead to the quicker depletion of her fund.

Baker J considered the case law regarding ‘best interests’ from paragraph 27 of his judgment. He derived the following principles:

  • There is no hierarchy between the various factors that have to be considered. But in some cases there may be a factor of ‘magnetic importance’ in determining the outcome – see the judgement of the then Munby J in Re M ITW v Z and Various Charities [2009] EWCH 2525 (Fam).
  • ‘interests’ is not confined to ‘self interest’ – a court can conclude that it is in the interests of P to act altruistically. See observation of Morgan J in Re G (TJ) [2010] EWCH 3005 (COP).
  • P’s wishes and feelings and the beliefs and values that will be likely to be influence her decision if she had capacity must be considered by the court so far as reasonably ascertainable.  They are not determinative but must be considered as part of the overall best interests analysis.  The weight to be attached to this factor will always be case-specific and fact-specific.
  • In assessing the weight to be attached to P’s wishes and feelings the court must have regard to all the relevant circumstances.

In considering this issue of ‘relevant circumstances’ Baker J set out and relied upon the observations of Munby J in Re M (op cit) at para 35:

the degree of P’s incapacity, for the nearer to the borderline the more weight must be in principle be attached to P’s wishes and feelings….

the strength and consistency of the views being expressed by P;

the possible impact on P of knowledge that her wishes and feelings are not being given effect to

the extent to which P’s wishes and feelings are, or are not, rational, sensible, responsible and pragmatically capable of sensible implementation in the particular circumstances; and

crucially, the extent to which P’s wishes and feelings, if given effect to, can properly be accommodated within the court’s overall assessment of what is in her best interests.  

Substituted Judgment – still relevant

Baker J was clear that the test under the 2005 Act was materially different from the test of ‘substituted judgments’ and agreed that the new approach was more akin to the ‘balance sheet’ approach.

But this does not mean that issues of substituted judgment have disappeared from our deliberations.  Baker J referred to how Morgan J traced the evolution of the best interests test in Re G (T) (op cit) by examining the judgments of the Court of Appeal and House of Lords in Airedale NHS Trust v Bland [1993] AC789 (in particular the judgment in the Court of Appeal of Hoffmann LJ) and the report of the Law Commission 231 which proceeded the passing of the 2005 Act.  It was the view of both the Law Commission and Hoffman LJ in Bland that substituted judgment can be subsumed within the context of best interests’

Baker J cited paragraph 55 of the judgment of Morgan J, where he observed:

The best interests test involves identifying a number of relevant factors. The actual wishes of P can be a relevant factor: s4(6) (a) says so. The beliefs and values which would be likely to influence P’s decision, if he had capacity to make the relevant decision, are a relevant factor: s4(6) (b) says so. The other factors that P would be likely to consider if he had the capacity to consider them, are a relevant factor: s4(6)(c) says so. Accordingly, the balance sheet of factors, which P would draw up, if he had capacity to make the decision, is a relevant factor for the court’s decision. Further, in most cases, the court will be able to determine what decision it is likely that P would have made, if he had capacity. In such a case, in my judgment, P’s balance sheet of factors and P’s likely decision can be taken into account by the court. This involves an element of substituted judgment being taken into account, together with anything else, which is relevant. However, it is absolutely clear that the ultimate test for the court is the test of best interests and not the test of substituted judgment. Nonetheless, the substituted judgment can be relevant and is not excluded from consideration.

 

By applying these considerations, Baker J was able to conclude ‘without hesitation’ that it was in the mother’s best interests to authorize payment to the nanny to take on the care of the children.

He observed at paragraph 45:

I accept that the court has power under the 2005 Act to approve payments for the maintenance or other benefit of members of P’s family, notwithstanding the absence of an express provision to that effect in the Act, provided such payments are in P’s best interests. Such payments might be called altruistic, but are more characterised as falling within the broad meaning of the concept of “best interests” under the Act. Where a parent loses mental capacity at a time when she is still responsible for her children, those responsibilities are part of her “interests” which have to be addressed by those making decisions on her behalf, and payments to meet the reasonable needs of those children are manifestly capable of being described as in her “best interests” on all the circumstances, applying the criteria in the Act….

Plainly P’s wishes and feelings are of great importance in determining whether in these circumstances it would be in her best interests for payments to be made. She has expressed the wish that her funds should be used in support of the children. It is said that, in expressing that view, she does not appreciate the fact that her own care needs are now costing more than her income. In my judgment, however, were she to have a full understanding of the shortfall, she would nevertheless support the payment of sums to S to safeguard the future of her children, preferring to make savings in the costs of meeting her own care needs. The new arrangement will significantly reduce the sums being paid towards the children out of her estate, and as a result the deputy and those responsible for managing her affairs will have greater flexibility in adjusting arrangements to enable her to make savings. I find that P’s wishes and feelings are, in the words of Munby J Re M, ITW v Z at paragraph 35, “responsible and pragmatically capable of sensible implementation in the circumstances” and “can properly be accommodated within the court’s overall assessment of what is in her best interests.

Conclusions

This can appear to be a convoluted and artificial exercise. For many inacpacitous people who have never expressed a view about their circumstances, and never will, it seems likely that what we will end up doing is simply imposing what we think is the best thing for them.

It’s clear that we get limited guidance from the case law as each case turns on its own facts – for example, some cases are clear that the ‘best interests’ of P cannot extend to considering what is best for anyone else, whereas in other cases the impacts of the decision on others becomes a factor of key importance.

But the value of the Act is that it forces us into a framework where we really have to stop and think about what we are doing and check our own assumptions.  As Lady Hale made clear in Cheshire West – this is simply about ensuring that disabled people have the same respect for their human rights as everyone else.  The scales will always tip back and forth between potentially excessive paternalism and a wish to protect to recognition of the right of us all to make unwise decisions.  In an imperfect world all we can do is recognize the requirements – and the limitations  – of the task in front of us.

Otherwise we end up in a situation such as Somerset v MK (Depravation of Liberty : Best Interests Decisions : Conduct of a Local Authority) [2014] EWCOP B25, where HHJ Marston commented at para 74 of his judgment:

The overall summing up by the senior social work manager was: “There has been a corporate failure and a failure of those on the ground to realise that they are out of their depth, most worrying was that they looked more sure about what they were doing than they ought, … it’s going to be difficult to re-establish that trust (with the family) if it’s rebuilt it is going to be with good practice”.” Mr Justice Ryder (as he then was) in a leading authority on FII cautioned social workers in child care cases not to decide what the picture was and then make the facts fit the picture, it seems to me that is what happened here.

Further Reading

An interesting case where it was found that a woman had a right to refuse treatment as her life had ‘lost its sparkle’ – see Kings College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust v C and Another [2015] and this discussion of the case by Lucy Series

 

The Mental Capacity Act 2005

Care proceedings may involve parents who are said to ‘lack capacity’. In this post we will discuss what that means and what are the implications for the care proceedings.

The Law – the Mental Capacity Act 2005

The Mental Capacity Act came into force in 2007 and provides a statutory framework for people who lack capacity to make decisions for themselves, or who want to prepare for possibly losing their capacity in the future.

It sets out who can take decisions for people who lack capacity, in which situations, and how they should go about this  There is a Code of Practice that needs to be read along side the Act. The Act covers England and Wales and applies to everyone who is over 16 years of age.

You must keep this Act separate from the Mental Health Act 1983 – that Act deals with people who have been diagnosed with a mental  health problem that is so serious they pose a risk to themselves or other people and therefore they need to be detained and treated, even if this is against their will.

The Mental Capacity Act applies to everyone who looks after someone who lacks capacity to make particular decisions for themselves. This includes social workers and doctors, as well as family or professional carers.

 

Key principles of the MCA

These are set out at section 1 of the Act.

  • Presumption of Capacity. All adults have the right to make decisions for themselves unless it can be shown that they are unable to make them. You can’t assume someone can’t make decisions just because they have a particular disability.
  • Maximising Decision Making Capacity. Everyone should be given all the help and support they need to make a decision before anyone concludes that they cannot make their own decision. For example, some people with learning disabilities find it much easier to understand information that is presented in pictures, rather than lots of words.
  • Right to be Unwise. Making an unwise or eccentric decision doesn’t automatically mean you lack capacity; people are allowed to make decisions that others might think unwise.
  • Best interests. Any actions taken or decisions made on behalf of someone who lacks capacity must be done in their best interests, after considering what is known about their preferences. Try to involve the person who lacks capacity as much as possible.
  • Least Restrictive Option. People who lack capacity should not be restricted unnecessarily; when making decisions for someone else you need to be careful to examine if what you are doing poses the least interference with that person’s freedoms.

 

The Court of Protection

It was established by section 45 of the MCA.  It can:

  • decide whether a person has capacity to make a particular decision for themselves;
  • make declarations, decisions or orders on financial or welfare matters affecting people who lack capacity to make such decisions;
  • appoint deputies to make decisions for people lacking capacity to make those decision;
  • remove deputies or attorneys who fail to carry out their duties.

The Court of Protection Rules of 2007 have been amended by new rules which come into force in April and July 2015 – see this blog post by Lucy Series which discusses the important changes they make to issues of transparency and participation.

See further the website www.courtofprotection.com for more information and discussion.

 

What does ‘lack of capacity’ mean?

An inability to make decisions

Someone is said to lack capacity if they can’t make their own decisions because of some problem with the way their brain or mind is working. This could arise due to illness, disability or exposure to drugs/alcohol. It doesn’t have to be a permanent condition.

There is an interesting post here by suesspicious minds about someone who was said to lack capacity due to his alcoholism; the court heard evidence from a variety of sources and decided that he did have capacity. 

If you ‘lack capacity’, to make a certain decision, this is more serious than just being unable to make up your mind or finding a particular decision difficult; someone who lacks capacity will generally find it hard to understand information, retain it or weigh it up and then communicate their decision to someone else.

Lack of capacity is defined in section 2 of the MCA:

(1) For the purposes of this Act, a person lacks capacity in relation to a matter if at the material time he is unable to make a decision for himself in relation to the matter because of an impairment of, or a disturbance in the functioning of, the mind or brain.
(2) It does not matter whether the impairment or disturbance is permanent or temporary.
(3) A lack of capacity cannot be established merely by reference to—
(a )a person’s age or appearance, or
(b) a condition of his, or an aspect of his behaviour, which might lead others to make unjustified assumptions about his capacity.
(4) In proceedings under this Act or any other enactment, any question whether a person lacks capacity within the meaning of this Act must be decided on the balance of probabilities.

Section 3 of the MCA sets out what is meant by an inability to make decisions. A person is considered unable to make a decision for himself if he is unable:

  • to understand the information relevant to the decision,
  • to retain that information,
  • to use or weigh that information as part of the process of making the decision, or
  • to communicate his decision (whether by talking, using sign language or any other means).

A person is not to be regarded as unable to understand the information relevant to a decision if he is able to understand an explanation of it given to him in a way that is appropriate to his circumstances (using simple language, visual aids or any other means).

If a person ‘lacks capacity’ to take part in legal proceedings, that doesn’t necessarily mean they can’t make any decisions at all – it may depend on the seriousness and complexity of the decision before them. For example, a decision about what to have for lunch is much less taxing than a decision about what instructions to give your lawyer in court.

The leading case discussing the test to determine capacity remains Masterman-Lister [2003]. The test of capacity which was identified here has been incorporated into the MCA 2005.

 

I am told I need an assessment of my capacity – what does this involve?

An assessment of someone’s lack of capacity is covered at para 4.38 of the Code of Practice. This is an important issue which needs to be dealt with quickly as it can have serious consequences for care proceedings, both in terms of necessary assessments and the fairness of the court process. The court should consider issues of capacity at the earliest opportunity. Your lawyer is under an obligation to raise this issue as soon as they have any doubts about your capacity to instruct them.

The court does not require expert evidence from a psychologist or psychiatrist in order to make a decision that you do or do not have capacity, but these experts are often asked to provide an assessment.

However, if it is very clear a person lacks capacity – due to being in a coma for e.g. – then the court is likely to be satisfied by just a letter from the treating doctor.

The Code of Practice considers the necessary practical steps for someone who is assessing capacity . The assessor must understand what the person being assessed is asked to decide about. The assessor must also bear in mind the five principles of the MCA as set out above and start from the presumption that the person has capacity.

The assessor should explain all the information relevant to the decision. The explanation must be in the most appropriate and effective form of communication for that person.

See para 4.49 of the Code of Practice.

  • Check the person’s understanding after a few minutes. The person should be able to give a rough explanation of the information that was explained. There are different methods for people who use non- verbal means of communication (for example, observing behaviour or their ability to recognise objects or pictures).
  • Avoid questions that need only a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer (for example, did you understand what I just said?). They are not enough to assess the person’s capacity to make a decision.
  • But there maybe no alternative in cases where there are major communication difficulties. In these cases, check the response by asking questions again in a different way.
  • Skills and behaviour do not necessarily reflect the person’s capacity to make specific decisions. The fact that someone has good social or language skills, polite behaviour or good manners doesn’t necessarily mean they understand the information or are able to weigh it up.
  • Repeating these steps can help confirm the result.

The British Medical Association publish a useful interactive tool to help doctors assess a patient’s capacity.

 

What follows from an assessment that you lack capacity

Appointment of a ‘litigation friend’

In family proceedings, if a person is found to lack capacity then they become a ‘protected party’. and they will need a  ‘litigation friend’ who will conduct the proceedings on their behalf.

See Part 15 of the Family Procedure Rules, Practice Direction 15A and Practice Direction 15B and this guidance.

According to the Practice Direction, a litigation friend must

fairly and competently to conduct proceedings on behalf of a protected party. The litigation friend must have no interest in the proceedings adverse to that of the protected party and all steps and decisions the litigation friend takes in the proceedings must be taken for the benefit of the protected party.

Anyone can be a litigation friend, as long as they can meet the requirements of the rules and Practice Directions. The requirement that you must  not have an interest in the proceedings which might be against the interests of the protected party may mean it is not sensible to have a close family member acting as a litigation friend – see the case of P v Nottingham in 2008, discussed below,  where the mother’s parents and brother had put themselves forward as litigation friends but were also putting themselves forward to care for her child. The court held they should not have been appointed.

The Official Solicitor

The court may invite the Official Solicitor to act as the litigation friend.  The Official Solicitor provides access to the justice system to those who are vulnerable by virtue of their young age or lack of mental capacity.

However, it should be noted that the OS’s department has only about 20 lawyers and 40 caseworkers. It has very little spare capacity. Therefore,  the OS should only be invited if there is no other person suitable or willing to act.

Court of Protection rules

 Part 17 of the Court of Protection 2007 rules which governed the appointment of litigation friends in the Court of Protection has now been replaced by the Court of Protection (Amendment) Rules 2015.

Lucy Series describes the impact of these amendments:

The amended rules now allow a person to be represented by an ‘accredited legal representative’ or even just a ‘representative’ without a litigation friend. An accredited legal representative is defined as ‘a legal representative authorised pursuant to a scheme of accreditation approved by the President to represent persons meeting the definition of “P” in this rule in proceedings before the court’. So presumably the President will shortly announce a scheme of accreditation for certain lawyers who can represent the relevant person without taking instruction from a litigation friend. I would be really interested to see whether this may lead to changes in how they represent the person – for example, will we see a move towards a more adversarial model, like that adopted in the Mental Health Tribunals, where representatives basically argue for what the person wants and not for what they don’t want, rather than arguing for what (in their view) is in the person’s best interests?

Can I still give evidence in my case if I am found to lack capacity?

See para 1.4 and 1.5 of the Practice Direction.

Where the court determines that a party does not have capacity to conduct the proceedings, the court may well also have to determine whether that party is able to give evidence and if so whether ‘special measures’ are required. Expert evidence is also likely to be necessary for the court to make such determinations. However, as in relation to the question of litigation capacity, the court may consider that evidence from a treating clinician who has a good understanding of the party’s difficulties may be sufficient. If the treating clinician is provided with information about the legal framework, the clinician may be able to provide that evidence more readily and more quickly than an expert instructed to give an opinion as to the party’s ability to give evidence.
Where the protected party is able to give evidence, the representative will wish to consider (and ask the expert to consider) the impact on that party of giving evidence. When making a determination as to whether that protected party should give evidence, the court may need to consider whether the impact of giving evidence would be so adverse to their condition that it would not be in that party’s best interests to do so. The representative may put forward an argument on behalf of the protected party that the protected party should not give evidence.

 

I don’t agree I ‘lack capacity’ – what can I do?

Capacity can fluctuate over the course of proceedings. See para 4.1 of the Practice Direction 15B:

Litigation capacity may be lost or regained during the proceedings as a result of deterioration or improvement in the impairment of, or disturbance in the functioning of, the party’s mind or brain. The necessity for expert evidence or evidence of a treating clinician as to a party’s capacity can therefore arise at any time during the proceedingsThe assessor should give reasons why they believe the person lacks capacity to make the decision, and provide objective evidence to support that belief. The assessor must also show they have applied the principles of the Mental Capacity Act.

Therefore, even if you were assessed at the start of proceedings as lacking capacity, you could argue that the situation has now changed.

If you simply don’t accept the first assessment, It might be possible to get a second opinion from an independent professional or another expert in assessing capacity. Chapter 15 of the Code of Practice offers other suggestions for resolving disagreements over the issue of capacity, such as mediation. But this may not be practicable if you are in care proceedings and decisions have to be made quickly. Your best option may be simply to apply to the court to get another assessment.

 

Restrictions on freedom of movement under MCA

What are the Mental Capacity Act 2005 Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards?

An important question is whether or not living arrangements made for someone who is mentally incapacitated amount to a ‘deprivation of liberty’. If they do, that deprivation has to be authorised.

The Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLs) set out in the MCA apply to anyone in a care home or hospital.  These provide an independent check on whether or not these arrangements are made in the best interests of that person.  If the person is living somewhere other than a hospital or care home, the Court of Protection must authorise that placement.

As Lady Hale said in the Cheshire West case (which we discuss below):

It is merely a recognition that human rights are for everyone, including the most disabled members of our community and that those rights include the same right to liberty as everyone else.

DoLs were introduced by the MCA after the UK was found to be in breach of Article 5 of the ECHR in 2004.  Article 5 protects people’s right not to be deprived of their liberty unless this is due to a small number of limited circumstances, such as being convicted of a crime.

The safeguards involve:

  • an independent assessments of a person’s capacity to consent to care arrangements and consideration of what is in their best interests.
  • those being assessed are entitled to assistance from a representative, an independent advocate and non-means tested legal aid to appeal against their detention in the Court of Protection.

 

What does ‘deprivation of liberty’ mean?

EDIT – The Government on 14th March 2018  published its response to the Law Commission’s Mental Capacity and Deprivation of Liberty report. The headline is that the Government “agree[s] in principle that the current DoLS system should be replaced as a matter of pressing urgency,” and that it will legislate in due course. Before the introduction of any new system, the Government has said that it will “need to consider carefully the detail of these proposals carefully and ensure that the design of the new system fits with the conditions of the sector, taking into account the future direction of health and social care.”

The circumstances in which someone can be said to be ‘deprived’ of their liberty have caused much discussion and debate, particularly when considering people who would end up with restrictions placed on their freedoms wherever they went, to stop them hurting themselves.

This issue finally got before the Supreme Court in 2014 in the case of Cheshire West. The court decided that the essential questions they needed to ask were:

  • Is the person subject to continuous supervision and control?
  • Is the person free to leave?

It was NOT relevant to the issue of whether or not someone had been deprived of their liberty to say that they did not object or they were living in a relatively ‘normal’ placement. As Lady Hale said in paragraph 46 of her judgement in Cheshire West:

…But, as it seems to me, what it means to be deprived of liberty must be the same for everyone, whether or not they have physical or mental disabilities. If it would be a deprivation of my liberty to be obliged to live in a particular place, subject to constant monitoring and control, only allowed out with close supervision, and unable to move away without permission even if such an opportunity became available, then it must also be a deprivation of the liberty of a disabled person. The fact that my living arrangements are comfortable, and indeed make my life as enjoyable as it could possibly be, should make no difference. A gilded cage is still a cage.

For a different view about the philosophical arguments that underpin our understanding of what makes a ‘deprivation of liberty’ see the judgment of Mostyn J in Rochdale MBC v KW [2014] discussed here at the Mental Capacity Law and Policy blog. The Judge commented at paragraph 7 of his judgment that he found it impossible:

…to conceive that the best interests arrangement for Katherine, in her own home, provided by an independent contractor, but devised and paid for by Rochdale and CCG, amounts to a deprivation of liberty within Article 5. If her family had money and had devised and paid for the very same arrangement this could not be a situation of deprivation of liberty. But because they are devised and paid for by organs of the state they are said so to be, and the whole panoply of authorisation and review required by Article 5 (and its explications) is brought into play. In my opinion this is arbitrary, arguably irrational, and a league away from the intentions of the framers of the Convention.

At paragraph 17 he set out his fundamental disagreement with the majority of the Supreme Court:

It is clear that the driving theme of the majority opinions is a denunciation of any form of discrimination against the disabled. With that sentiment I naturally wholeheartedly agree. Discrimination is found where like cases are not treated alike. However, when making Lord Kerr’s comparison you do not have two like cases. You are comparing, on the one hand, a case where an 18 year old does not need protection and, on the other, a case where the 18 year old does. They are fundamentally dissimilar. The dissimilarity justifies differential treatment in the nature of protective measures. For me, it is simply impossible to see how such protective measures can linguistically be characterised as a “deprivation of liberty”. The protected person is, as Mill says, merely “in a state to require being taken care of by others, [and] must be protected against their own actions as well as against external injury”. And nothing more than that. In fact it seems to me to be an implementation of the right to security found in Article 5.

Mostyn J remains bound by the decision of the Supreme Court. However, The Law Commission are currently reviewing this area of law around deprivation of liberty and hope to report by 2017. The report will consider how deprivation of liberty should be authorised and supervised in hospitals, care homes and community settings, where it is possible that Article 5 rights would otherwise be infringed. This will include considering the legislation underpinning DoLS in its entirety. 

 

Further reading