The High Court has ordered that a woman be discharged from wardship after appointing her granddaughter as her co-decision-maker, subject to registration of a co-decision-making agreement with the Decision Support Service.
In a ruling delivered on 6 June 2024, Mr Justice Mark Heslin declared under section 55(1)(b)(i) of the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act 2015 that the woman lacks capacity in health, personal welfare, and property and affairs unless a suitable co-decision-maker is available to assist her.
The judge said the evidence showed she retained some ability to make less complex decisions. A consultant psychiatrist’s assessment found she could not demonstrate capacity for independent decisions on complex welfare, healthcare, treatment, property and financial matters, largely because of difficulty weighing and balancing information. The psychiatrist said she would likely benefit from a co-decision-maker. The court heard no medical evidence challenging that assessment.
The woman, who was admitted to wardship in November 2019, lives alone in her family home and receives support from carers and her granddaughter. The judgment records that she expressed a wish in February and again in May to have her granddaughter appointed. One of her sons had expressed concern about complex and fractious relations among family members and supported an independent decision supporter. The judge said the granddaughter was suitable and that appointing her accorded with the woman’s clearly expressed wishes.
The court ordered the granddaughter’s appointment and prohibited publication likely to identify the woman. Discharge from wardship is to take effect upon registration of the co-decision-making agreement with the Decision Support Service. The woman’s assets are to be returned on proof of registration, which is to be provided within three months; the court accountant is to carry out the directions in the payment schedule once that proof is produced.
The judge also ordered a review of the woman’s capacity no later than two years from the date of the order. The General Solicitor, who had acted as her Committee, did not seek costs. The ruling states that she is no longer a ward of court.