S (Adult Patient : Inherent Jurisdiction: Family Life)

Ms Fenella Morris (instructed by the City Solicitor) for the Claimant (the local authority) Ms Linda Cains (instructed by Zermansky & Partners) for the first defendant (S) Mr Bernard Wallwork (instructed by Howells) for the second defendant DS (the father) Hearing dates : 2-3 October 2002 ____________________

i) In what circumstances should the parental responsibility (I use the phrase in the colloquial sense, and not in the technical sense in which it is used in section 3 of the 1989 Act) be superseded by the court exercising its inherent declaratory jurisdiction? In particular, is there, by analogy with sections 31(2) and 100(4)(b) of the 1989 Act, any threshold requirement to establish, before the State can intervene, either the risk of significant harm and/or parenting which falls short of the reasonable?

ii) Is it permissible for the court to delegate to a third party - in a case such as this the local authority - what amounts to decision-making responsibility in relation to a mentally incapacitated adult?

iii) that the High Court does not have (indeed has never had) parens patriae or other jurisdiction over the person of a mentally incapacitated adult - though, that said, as I pointed out at p 227D (para [45]) "for most practical purposes the declaratory jurisdiction in relation to incompetent adults is the same as that of a court exercising the parens patriae jurisdiction"; and

iv) that the parent or other relative of such an adult does not have any authority, qua parent or relative, to take decisions on his behalf.