The Court of Appeal has dismissed a mother's attempt to overturn the appointment of an independent decision-making representative for her adult son following his discharge from wardship.
B.M. sought to be appointed as decision-making representative for E.M., who was born in 1984 and had been a ward of court since about 2009. The High Court discharged him from wardship in December 2025 but appointed an independent representative, T.M., rather than his mother.
E.M. has lived in a care facility for more than two decades. Medical evidence before the High Court stated that he lacked capacity to make decisions concerning healthcare, personal welfare and financial affairs, even with assistance from a co-decision-maker.
B.M. told the courts that she wanted to bring her son home and care for him, and she criticised the standard of care he was receiving. The High Court accepted that family relationships were factors supporting her appointment, but also considered her plan to remove E.M. from his long-term placement, the absence of a clear future care plan and E.M.'s own stated wishes.
Evidence from interviews with E.M. indicated that he wished to remain in his current accommodation and did not wish to live with his mother. The Court of Appeal accepted the High Court's assessment of those factors.
Ms Justice Pilkington said an appeal under section 141 of the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act 2015 is limited to a point of law. B.M. had not identified any legal error and was effectively asking the appellate court to reach a different conclusion on the same facts. The appeal was therefore dismissed.
In a separate judgment, Ms Justice Butler rejected an argument that the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction because B.M. could instead seek a variation through the Circuit Court. She held that the statutory appeal remained available, although confined to questions of law.
Mr Justice McDonald agreed that no error of law had been shown and that the appeal should be dismissed.