Page 8 - Community Living Magazine 32 - 4

legal: coercive control
Coercion – when your home

is not quite your castle

A court’s decision to protect a vulnerable but not incapacitated adult from
someone living with them could have implications for families who have a
‘challenging’ person in their home, says Belinda Schwehr

ouglas Meyers, a gentleman of Government Act 1972 to bring visits (because there is at the very least a
97, has made some legal history, proceedings to at least suspend a duty to monitor even if it is not possible
Dregarding safeguarding obligations licensee’s occupation rights, in the to do anything else). There was further
in cases of capacitated risk-taking where authority’s own name, if the owner intimidating behaviour by the son towards
a person is involved codependently cannot be persuaded to do so. the social work staff and the property
with another. started deteriorating again.
He has been told he cannot allow his Background By June 2018, the council declared that,
son to live with him in his own home, Meyers was 97, blind, and had diabetes having reasonably done all it could to
because of the effect of the son’s and osteoarthritis. He had long allowed provide the father with care, it should be
influence on his safety – despite the father his son to live with him, and had promised discharged from all duties owed to him. A
retaining the presumption of capacity as his deceased wife he would look after him. meal would be delivered daily, and he
to where he himself should live. could contact the council and seek
This development matters to any family assistance if he wanted. This device is open
determined to cope “no matter what” “ The case extends to any council but very rarely used.
with adult offspring at home who are seen safeguarding duties when In September 2018, the father was
as presenting “challenging” behaviour. found on his bed with no mattress or
The process used in this case and its the carer is the focus of sheets, surrounded by flies, blood, food,
outcome provide some calm leverage in concern but cannot get faeces and clutter. He was cold, in pain,
safeguarding negotiations, so it is had been without food or drink for several
important for staff and families to be over their sense of duty days and was hallucinating. He was
aware of the legal framework. His son was addicted to drugs and ” eventually persuaded to go to a care
The case also extends the scope of home by ambulance.
safeguarding obligations beyond mere Legally, it was arguable that, as a result
Court of Protection processes when the alcohol and often behaved intimidatingly; of his age and increasing infirmity, he had
carer is the greater focus for concern but around 10 care companies had withdrawn lost capacity to make decisions about his
cannot get over their sense of duty to their services because of this and the residence. An ex parte order was granted
their relative. condition of the property. requiring him to live in residential care
The judge refused the declaration The father understood the consequences provided by the council, pending further
sought by Southend Council that it had and did not manage or control the son’s order of the court.
discharged its responsibilities to Meyers behaviour. Other adult offspring had given In October 2018, he agreed to abide by
and suggested further steps were intrinsic up and become estranged. the court’s order; he maintained that he
in its duties. He exhorted the council: In March 2017, injunctions were made was content not to return home, not to
prohibiting the son from behaving in an live with the son, and to submit to a
“I regard it as intrinsic to the council’s aggressive or intimidating manner capacity assessment.
duties here actively to promote the towards professionals attending the The council helped him prepare a
reunification of this family to support property or from impeding or interfering termination notice for the son’s licence to
the care arrangements … The wider with any works to it. reside at the property, which was served
family may be able to unlock the Extensive renovations were carried out on the son but not enforced. The son
unhealthy interdependency between to make the home habitable again; both remained at the property.
Meyers and his son, given the time, the of the men moved out during the works A psychiatrist confirmed that Meyers
space and the support to do so.” then returned. did have the requisite capacity to make
Hoewever, Southend continued to decisions on where he should live,
The meaning of “respect” for family life encounter difficulties in providing support including whether the son should live at
in article 8 of the European Convention on because of the problems associated with the property.
Human Rights (ECHR), and the duty to the son’s behaviour. In December, the urgent applications
promote wellbeing in the delivery of Care One agency agreed to become involved judge heard evidence and submissions on
Act functions are excellent justifications for again, but only if the council provided capacity and enabled the father to
any council taking proactive steps, such as: personal safety devices for the care staff. participate in proceedings by telephone.
● ●Paying for mediation or non-statutory After a month, the agency felt unable to The judge was critical of Southend, but
advocacy continue and council social workers only as the case had become urgent
● ●Using section 222 of the Local stepped in to provide weekly welfare because opportunities for more timely
8 Vol 32 No 4 | Summer 2019 Community Living www.cl-initiatives.co.uk