This factsheet outlines the responsibilities of a deputy, how to apply to become
one, and factors to consider before deciding to do so.

This note has been produced to offer guidance to Councils about when the intervention of the Court of Protection may be needed in relation to welfare decisions where a person lacks mental capacity for the decision. Any decision in relation to an application to Court must be informed by the Mental Capacity Act (MCA), the MCA Code of Practice and case law. This is a short summary and overview and not legal advice, which should always be sought in individual situations.

This website provides information and case examples on MCA practices with some focus on Court of Protection: health, welfare, Deprivation of Liberty and property and affairs.

Case law relating to health, welfare and deprivation of liberty.

This Guidance aims to demystify the Court of Protection generally and the role of litigation friend specifically so as to enable more people to consider taking up the role – thereby ensuring the better promotion and protection of the rights of those said to be lacking capacity to take their own decisions.

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to consider the role of social work professional evidence in mental capacity law, specifically Court of Protection proceedings. The authors analyse how social workers perform as evidence givers in this domain and how social work as a profession is perceived alongside other professions within the context of adult social care decision-making in mental capacity law. Design/methodology/approach: This paper draws on textual evidence from judgments and existing empirical data published elsewhere. The authors consider the contribution of social work professional expertise to best interests decision-making in formal legal proceedings which, in turn, reflects on how social work expertise is relevant in everyday practice. Findings: The findings of this paper include that social workers are well placed to be experts on best interests decision-making in mental capacity law. However, the authors show that the Court of Protection has not always endorsed this form of social work expertise in its judgments, meaning that social workers can struggle to articulate an expert knowledge base. Originality/value: Overall, the authors conclude that social work evidence is incredibly valuable as expertise about the person’s best interests, particularly in the domain of welfare cases and care planning.

Brief guidance on Court appointed deputies and independent mental capacity advocates.

This is the transparency order template, and includes explanations and guidance. The Court of Protection is testing a new way of having hearings. For the time being, hearings will be in public, but no-one will be allowed to name the people involved. If individuals want their hearing to be in private instead, they can ask the judge. They will need to explain in writing why their case should be treated differently to the other cases.

The Mental Capacity Act requires that where a person (P) lacks capacity to make a decision her wishes and feelings be taken into account when deciding what is in her best interests. This article considers how the Court of Protection evaluates evidence from P concerning her wishes and feelings. It finds that the Court ignores evidence regarding current wishes and fails to engage with more ambiguous evidence where P desires conflicting outcomes or may be concealing her true feelings. This is unhelpful since it makes the resulting judgment unconvincing to observers. It is legally problematic, since the Court should be following the practices of other decision-makers under the Mental Capacity Act (MCA). And it is ethically problematic since it undermines P’s dignity and does not treat P as an actor whose evidence regarding her wishes and feelings has intrinsic status which the Court must make active efforts to engage with or discount rather than ignore.

This Act amends the Mental Capacity Act 2005 in relation to procedures with which a person may be deprived of liberty where the person lacks capacity to consent. It includes amendments of authorising of arrangements enabling care and treatment which give rise to a deprivation of liberty; and Section 42 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 code of practice in relation to Deprivation of liberty. The legislation provides for the repeal of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and their replacement with a new scheme called the Liberty Protection Safeguards (LPS).

This paper presents a review, in two parts, of the first ten years of the Court of Protection, a specialist mental capacity court in England and Wales which applies a functional model of mental capacity. The first part outlines the history of the functional model in England and Wales, and the development of this specialist mental capacity court (Court of Protection), created by the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The second part presents an empirical and case-based study of 40 published cases of capacity disputes presented to the Court of Protection, or to the Court of Appeal on appeal from the Court of Protection, during the first ten years of its existence. The authors found that in 70% of cases the subject of proceedings (or P) had either a learning disability or dementia, and the court ruled on P’s capacity for a wide range of issues, most commonly residence, care and contact. The judge considered the support principle, or whether practical steps were taken to maximise P’s capacity, in 23 of 40 (57.5%) cases. The subject P was determined to have capacity in 13 cases, to lack capacity in 22 cases, and in 5 cases P was found to have and lack capacity for different issues before the court. The functional inability to use or weigh relevant information was most commonly cited by the judge, being cited in all but 2 cases in which P was determined to lack capacity and inabilities were cited. The propensity for the system to learn was shown by an increase in the proportion of cases which considered the ‘causative nexus’ from 2013, when a Court of Appeal case emphasised that impairment must not merely be present alongside functional inability but must be the causal basis of inability. The authors conclude that whilst the Court of Protection is still on a learning curve, its work provides a powerful illustration of what taking capacity seriously looks like, both inside and outside the courtroom.

This protocol has been produced to offer guidance to staff about good practice in case management prior to accessing the Court of Protection in relation to welfare disputes and the procedure to follow when an application may be needed.