The Circuit Court declared that a woman, identified in the judgment by the fictional name Joan Doe, lacks capacity to make decisions about her long-term accommodation, medical treatment and financial affairs, even with support from a co-decision-maker. It directed that independent decision-making representatives be appointed and adjourned the proceedings to 21 December 2023 to make those appointments.
The judgment, delivered by Judge John O’Connor on 8 December 2023, arose from an application by the Health Service Executive. The family accepted that the woman lacked capacity in the areas at issue but sought appointment of relatives as her representatives. The court instead requested two nominees for personal welfare matters and two separate nominees for property and financial affairs, with one representative to be appointed in each area. The judgment does not record those appointments as having been made.
The declaration covers long-term accommodation and medical treatment decisions, except decisions within statutory provisions outside the Circuit Court’s jurisdiction. It also covers management of the woman’s house, apartment, bank accounts and pensions, and applying for ancillary state support under the Nursing Home Support Scheme if required. The court specified that authority to manage property does not permit its sale; a further court application would be needed for that.
The court said the family were devoted to the woman but found conflicts that prevented them from objectively managing her finances, medical care and accommodation. It cited her brother’s residence in her house, unclear arrangements concerning an apartment, the absence of accounts for finances he had managed, a weekly €25 payment to another brother and a holiday that benefited him. The court said an independent representative was needed to address those issues. It also found the family’s proposed care plan unrealistic given the woman’s complex needs.
The judgment recounts differing evidence about care and medication. The treating psychiatrist said the woman needed one or two professional carers around the clock and that a prior medication reduction had caused acute catatonia. Her brother disputed the need for round-the-clock professional care, said the family could provide home support, and accepted that he had withheld some medication over a weekend, adding that this may have been the wrong decision. The court also noted evidence from an independent solicitor who had met the woman six times; her engagement varied, and at one visit she said she was too stressed.
The court said the independent representatives’ appointment should not prevent family contact, and expressed the hope that relatives would continue visiting and cooperate with them. It proposed a review after six months. Representatives appointed from the Decision Support Service panel are to be reasonably remunerated from the woman’s estate under the service’s criteria.