Care at home: Article 8 and incapacitated adults

Purpose - This paper aims to review recent cases in the Court of Protection on the issue of article 8 ECHR right to respect for family life and whether it requires a starting point that it is in an incapacitated adult's best interests to be cared from at home. In this context, it examines the r...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Social care and neurodisability 2012-11, Vol.3 (4), p.179-185
Hauptverfasser: Butler-Cole, Victoria, Grogan, Rose
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Purpose - This paper aims to review recent cases in the Court of Protection on the issue of article 8 ECHR right to respect for family life and whether it requires a starting point that it is in an incapacitated adult's best interests to be cared from at home. In this context, it examines the role of article 19 UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) in the article 8 and best interests analysis carried out by the court under s.4 Mental Capacity Act 2005.Design methodology approach - The article examines the recent cases of K v. A Local Authority, FM and GM v. A Health Board and recent cases on the status of the UNCRPD in English Law to explore whether the UK's obligations under that convention require there to be a starting point that incapacitated adults should be cared for at home.Findings - The Court of Protection has made it clear that talking in terms of presumptions is unhelpful when it comes to the s.4 MCA 2005 checklist. The broad terms of s.4 require that all relevant circumstances are taken into account which would include any potential infringement of article 8 ECHR.Originality value - The article identifies an argument that could be used by campaigners and practitioners who advocate for the right for disabled persons to be cared for at home, through an analysis of recent cases. It notes the argument's limitations with respect to incapacitated adults and the application of s.4 Mental Capacity Act 2005.
ISSN:2042-0919
2042-0919
DOI:10.1108/20420911211286588