A Local Authority applied orally for orders restricting SR’s contact with her husband, JR, in the light of concerns about JR’s expressed views in relation to euthanasia and other comments made by him from time to time. Her Honour Judge Kate Buckingham considered evidence filed by the Local Authority and heard oral evidence from JR and his daughter. She accepted that, whilst JR’s comments had given rise to legitimate anxiety on the part of the professionals, she did not consider that there was adequate investigation into the reasons why JR had made such comments and what he understood by the notion of supporting euthanasia. JR was consistent that he would never dream of hurting his wife. The Judge took note of the fact that, following the first comments in August 2016, SR returned home to live with JR until 9th November 2016. Between 9th November 2016 and 27th May 2017, extensive unsupervised contact took place within the care home and outside the care home. To date, JR remains alone with SR for approximately two hours per evening in a closed room. SR has remained safe and the subject of devoted attention from her husband. The Judge reached the conclusion that the restriction sought by A Local Authority was neither justifiable, proportionate or necessary.
The full judgment can be read here.
If you have any questions about this summary case law please contact Julie here.