CDC’s case law digest service provides essential updates on the latest judicial decisions affecting disabled children and young people and those with SEN.

There is little empirical research focusing on how social workers experience the law in their everyday professional practice, and still less on how mental health social workers experience assessment for compulsory admission under mental health law. The article is informed by a hermeneutic phenomenological approach, drawing on in-depth interviews and practitioner diaries with social work Approved Mental Health Professionals (AMHPs), providing exploration of how social work AMHPs experience compulsory assessment under mental health law in practice. This is revealed as a socio-relational process, involving a focus on the person in their environment in relation to others, such as family and professionals. Ethical challenges realising human rights social work practice are illuminated. This draws attention to how space for such practice can be eroded by systems conditions. The importance of amplifying the voice of the person assessed is highlighted in the context that their voice is severely diminished during the process of assessment. The article provides insights on the complexity involved in compulsory mental health practice, drawing attention to trust as an important concept. Finally, the article argues that realising human rights-oriented AMHP practice requires social work to challenge systems conditions that erode the ability to do so.

This report explores the context in which the decision of whether to use the MHA or the MCA to authorise a deprivation of liberty is made and the different factors that practitioners use to assess and weigh up which Act is most appropriate and ‘least restrictive’ for the individual concerned. The research used a mixed-methods approach with an online survey to capture the diversity of factors that influence decision-making across clinical groups, and qualitative interviews with clinicians and professionals to explore in depth their understanding of the interface and experiences of making this decision in practice. A large proportion of participants in this research report encountering people to whom this decision applies at least once a month, if not weekly. This decision most commonly applies to people who have dementia, but also to people with a wide range of mental disorders, including those with functional mental illnesses, neurodevelopment and neurological conditions. Participants report most commonly applying this decision to people in community settings, but application also occurs in mental health and acute hospitals including in the emergency department. There is a lack of common understanding around fundamental issues on which this decision is based including core concepts of capacity and objection. Blanket rules exist within professional groups and across different settings that restrict decision-making. The rights afforded to people admitted and treated in some settings and areas of England may not be afforded to those in others. The majority of participants report that their training covered decision-making at the interface of the Acts. However, codes of practice and case law are described as difficult to understand and keep up to date with. Understanding clinical decision-making at the in. Practitioners highlight a number of different ways in which patients are unlawfully deprived of their liberty as a result of the factors outlined above.

Examines the practical implications of the dual legislative regime governing involuntary treatment and how the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Mental Health Act 1983 interface. Whilst the MCA is concerned with individuals who lack capacity to make decisions for themselves, and legal protection for their carers/care workers, the MHA is concerned with minimising the undesirable effects of mental disorder by maximising patient safety and wellbeing and by protecting other people from harm.

The website is run by a practising solicitor, Jonathan Wilson. It includes links to the full text of the relevant primary and secondary legislation, as well as a searchable and comprehensive database of cases from all levels of tribunals and courts in which the Mental Health Act 1983 and/or the Mental Capacity Act 2005 have been considered.

This practice guidance describes the role of Independent Mental Capacity Advocates (IMCAs) and paid representatives in the Mental Capacity Act Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (MCA DOLS).

This At a glance summary presents an overview of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005, which is important to health and social care practice.

Information, guidance, and accredited training for care and health staff to support, protect and empower people who may lack capacity.

This flowchart sets out the steps needed to provide care and treatment to patients who re not under DoLS or MHA, patients with a DoLS authorisation, and patients detained under the MHA.

Flowchart illustrating the four routes to admitting to hospital a person needing treatment for mental health disorder: voluntary admission; Mental Health Act 1983; Mental Capacity Act; and Court order.

Frequently asked questions, providing guidance for general practitioners around the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Mental Health Act 1983, decision making, identifying a deprivation of liberty, authorising a deprivation of liberty in hospital and care home settings and in domestic settings, and deprivation of liberty.

A quick guide to the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards, looking at the use of DoLS, the role of the Managing Authority, what to do when a deprivation of liberty is identified, what happens when an application is made, the roles of the Supervisory Body and the Relevant Persons Representatives, and what happens when an authorisation ends.