A remarkable turnaround: Updating the “vile judgment” case

By Amanda Hill, 13th August 2026

As I write this in August 2026, Caroline Grady^[1] is the primary (unpaid) carer for her mother, now in her eighties, who continues to live in her own home. Caroline visits every day and works alongside paid carers, who attend four times daily, to ensure her mother receives the care she needs. She can visit whenever she wishes and has unrestricted, unsupervised contact with her mother.

This is a remarkable turnaround.

For two years, between October 2023 and October 2025, the court banned Caroline from any unsupervised contact with her mother, the protected party ‘P’, including speaking to her on the phone – all calls had to have the speakerphone on. Norfolk County Council had arranged a 24-hour live-in care package and carers monitored their meetings and conversations, including recording what they said to each other.

This blog outlines the “Background” to the case and then describes in more detail what happened in the two most recent hearings, on 22nd October 2025 and 23rd March 2026.^[2]

Background

This case, COP 14187074, is one the Open Justice Court of Protection Project has been following for a long time and we have published a number of blogs (see Appendix).^[3]

In early 2023, Caroline’s mother, then in her late 70s, was in hospital with a chest infection.  While she was there, hospital staff and a hospital social worker became concerned about the mother/daughter relationship. The hospital made a safeguarding referral to the local authority, Norfolk County Council.  Caroline’s mother was discharged home in early May 2023. A few months later, following an alleged lasagne-throwing incident in late September 2023, a care plan, including live-in 24 hour care, was put in place, beginning in October 2023. The incident also led to Caroline being arrested for actual bodily harm and forbidden from seeing her mother for 3 months. She was never charged by the police. At an initial Court of Protection hearing, DJ Russell made an order declaring that there was reason to believe Caroline’s mother lacked capacity to conduct proceedings, and at a hearing on 17th January 2024, HHJ Beckley concurred.

At the same hearing he asked Caroline to give a number of “undertakings” (for more information about these, see “Make a legal promise to a court“). These included a promise only to have contact with her mother with a carer present. She was also asked to undertake not to use threatening or intimidating words or behaviour with the carer or with her mother, and not to cause her mother “upset or distress”. Undertakings have a penal notice attached to them, which means if somebody breaches them, they can be sent to prison. The judge also asked Caroline to agree not to use the Lasting Powers of Attorney. This was in advance of a fact-finding hearing, applied for by the local authority, which would establish whether or not Caroline had exerted coercive control over her mother.

At the fact-finding hearing in October 2024, Mrs Justice Arbuthnot found that Caroline’s mother lacked capacity to conduct proceedings, to decide about care, and to manage her property and affairs, but she did have capacity to decide about contact. The judge also found, on the balance of probabilities, all the allegations against Caroline to be “proved” or “found”, and declared that Caroline had undue influence over her mother.  The court invoked the inherent jurisdiction to protect Caroline’s mother and maintained supervised contact only, this time by court order rather than an undertaking. An injunction with 11 terms was added to the Lasting Power of Attorney for Health and Welfare (§75 of the judgment):

The terms state that Caroline:

1) … shall not install any camera, listening equipment or loudspeaker in [P’s]’s property, whether live-feed only, or live-feed plus recording…..

2) … shall not tell or suggest to [P’s]carers how to meet [P’s] care needs, or purport to hire or dismiss carers

3)…. shall not lie to, threaten, harass or intimidate [P]

4) …  shall not force [P] to exercise. 

5) …. shall not force-feed [P]

6) …..shall not mention or threaten to send [P] to a care home, or to Switzerland. 

7).… shall not deny [P] access to healthcare assessments or interventions. 

8)…..shall not take steps to prevent [P] from being administered prescribed medication. 

9) … shall not seek to discharge [P] from hospital against medical advice. 

10)…. shall not take steps to prevent social services and other social care, or healthcare practitioners from visiting or speaking with [P] alone. 

11)…. shall not take steps to move [P] to another place of residence.

In January 2025, Caroline was found to have been in contempt of court for breaching the undertakings she had given the court in January 2024. She was found to have upset her mother three times. She was found to have had unsupervised contact with her mother by not putting the phone on speakerphone all the time. She was found to have used the words “care home” in front of her mother, and to have told her mother a lie. It was open to the judge to commit Caroline to prison for these breaches of undertakings, but instead she fined her £500.

Normally, the names of people who are at risk of being committed to prison are made public in the court lists and in published judgments (and in any reports about the case). In this case, however, the judge did not authorise publication of her name. A court observer (Celia Kitzinger) made an application to remove the ban on publishing Caroline’s name – and other information about her which included the familial relationship between Caroline and the protected party. This was so that Open Justice Court of Protection blogs already in the public domain could be linked to the published judgment. The application was successful.

Caroline wants to give her side of the story and she wants the court proceedings to be publicised.  She gave her reaction to what she calls the “Vile judgment” in the blog of September 2025 (see Appendix).

Caroline did not  – and does not – accept all the “facts” that the Court found in the fact-finding hearing of October 2024. (In the civil court the ‘balance of probabilities’ test is applied so the probability that the “fact” is as the court determined can be as low as 51%.) Those facts that Caroline does accept are matters she understands and interprets very differently from the Court’s framing of what happened.

Caroline sought greater freedom to see her mother without supervision shortly after the fact-finding hearing. In December 2024 she applied for unrestricted contact on Christmas Day. The family wanted twelve hours together but the local authority only wanted them to have two.  The court finally authorised six hours, provided Caroline’s partner was present throughout.

Since the April 2025 hearing that concerned the Transparency Order and reporting restrictions, there have been two more hearings to discuss substantive issues, Caroline’s mother’s care, contact and the injunction.

The hearings in October 2025 and March 2026 reflect how significantly the case has evolved. By October 2025, the local authority had concluded that 24-hour live-in care was no longer necessary and sought court approval to replace it with four daily care visits supported by assistive technology. The court agreed, bringing an end to all restrictions on contact between Caroline and her mother. In October 2024, as Caroline’s mother had been assessed as having capacity to make decisions about contact, the inherent jurisdiction was invoked, instead of the Court of Protection. This “dropped away”, to use the judge’s words, after the October 2025 hearing.

Less than ten months after the family had pleaded to spend some hours together, unsupervised, on Christmas Day 2024, the court had lifted all restrictions on contact.

The March 2026 hearing addressed whether all the terms of the injunction attached to Caroline’s Lasting Power of Attorney for Health and Welfare could now be removed. The court decided they should remain in force for a further six months, with a final hearing listed for October 2026 to determine whether they should continue and to bring the proceedings to an end.

I will now set out in more detail what happened during the October 2025 and March 2026 hearings. The legal teams have remained largely unchanged throughout the proceedings I have observed. Mrs Justice Arbuthnot has presided over each hearing, Dr Oliver Lewis has represented Norfolk County Council, while Malcolm Chisholm has represented Caroline’s mother through the Official Solicitor[4].

The hearing of 22 October 2025

The October 2025 hearing concerned the authorisation of a significant change in Caroline’s mother’s care arrangements. Norfolk County Council had concluded that the 24-hour live-in care package was no longer necessary and sought the court’s approval to replace it with four daily care visits supported by assistive technology. If approved, the change would also bring an end to the supervision of contact between Caroline and her mother.

The remote hearing lasted just under two hours. Caroline joined from her mother’s home, together with her parents and her McKenzie friend, Arthur Stokes. During the hearing Caroline welcomed the fact that someone from the Open Justice Court of Protection Project was observing, commenting that “no family should be put through what we’ve been.”

The following paragraphs summarise the main content from the position statements.

The LA position

The local authority’s position was that the live-in care package had never been commissioned because of Caroline’s mother’s care needs alone. Rather, it had been introduced in October 2023 to protect her from the risk of abusive and controlling behaviour of her daughter. The authority argued that the protective purpose of the package had now been fulfilled. It noted that there had been no further incidents since the fact-finding of October 2024 and considered that Caroline had demonstrated an improved ability to regulate her behaviour.

The local authority also relied on Caroline’s mother’s own wishes. The position statement records her words:

“I am old now, I am in my 80s and I want a proper and normal life. I do not want to be somebody who is monitored and watched all the time. It is hurtful and I am not happy with that, who would be? It is not like they are a relative. They are always there and it is horrible”. (§15, LA PS)

If the 24-hour package of care was removed: “it would feel like heaven…….I just don’t feel as though I have got a life anymore at the moment. I feel like I am the guilty one, like I am being punished. At my age, I don’t think it is right”. (§18, LA PS).

Caroline’s mother was also quoted as saying that she was very happy to have unsupervised contact with her daughter.

To replace the live-in care package, the authority proposed four visits a day by paid carers together with assistive technology, including cameras without audio capability.

Caroline Grady’s position

Caroline took a different view. She argued that the live-in care should remain because she was concerned about her mother’s safety. Although she wanted unrestricted contact restored, she said she would rather accept continued supervision than see the 24-hour care package withdrawn. If live-in care did end, she argued that any replacement camera system should include audio so that she could speak to her mother in an emergency.

The Official Solicitor’s position

Representing Caroline’s mother through the Official Solicitor, counsel agreed that the 24-hour package could end, although he suggested a gradual transition. He emphasised that Caroline’s mother consistently wanted unrestricted contact with Caroline. But he submitted that the injunction terms attached to Caroline’s Lasting Power of Attorney should remain in place for the time being as an important safeguard.

As the option of 24 hour care was no longer being offered, the court could not order it to be continued, and did not suggest that it should be.  The judge observed that such packages are very unusual and that many older people rely on more limited support or fund additional care themselves. Caroline maintained that the decision was driven by financial considerations rather than her mother’s welfare, but the judge said there was no evidence of that.

Counsel for the Official Solicitor acknowledged the progress that had been made since the fact-finding hearing, remarking that the improvements were “to Miss Grady’s credit”.

Caroline questioned how the contact restrictions could be lifted while the injunction terms affecting her Lasting Power of Attorney remained. Counsel for the Official Solicitor explained that the two issues arose under different legal jurisdictions: decisions about contact had been dealt with under the court’s inherent jurisdiction, whereas the injunction terms regulating Caroline’s use of her powers as attorney remained matters for the Court of Protection.

The principal point of dispute concerned the proposed camera system. Caroline wanted audio capability so that she could reassure or guide her mother if she saw her fall. The local authority opposed this, arguing that an audio link could enable Caroline to resume “directing”, ie controlling her mother.  The local authority  insisted that any replacement system should provide video only. Caroline asked whether existing equipment could simply have its audio function disabled, but the authority required a new system to be installed. Caroline explained that she would have to pay for this new equipment, as all of her mother’s savings had been spent at the beginning of the court case (when she wanted to appoint her own legal representative.)

In giving judgment, Mrs Justice Arbuthnot concluded that the protective purpose of the supervision order had come to an end. She noted that there had been no repeat of the behaviour identified in the fact-finding judgment and that this was to Caroline’s credit. Most importantly, Caroline’s mother wanted both the live-in care package and the supervision of contact to end. As she had capacity to decide who she wished to see, the inherent jurisdiction order was discharged with immediate effect. Caroline and her mother were free to spend time together without restrictions, whenever they wanted.

The court also approved the replacement care package of four daily visits supported by assistive technology. The remaining issue—the future of the injunction terms attached to Caroline’s Lasting Power of Attorney—was deferred to the March 2026 hearing.

The hearing of 23 March 2026

This hearing addressed the issue of the remaining injunction terms, as well as reviewing Caroline’s mother’s wellbeing under the new arrangements.

By this stage, the arrangements approved in October 2025 had been in place for several months. Caroline’s mother remained at home, supported by carers visiting four times a day and assistive technology. Caroline continued to play a central role in her mother’s care and enjoyed unrestricted contact with her. The parties agreed that these arrangements were working well for Caroline’s mother. Counsel for the Local Authority started his submissions be saying that “She’s looking good and she says she’s feeling good.”

Counsel for the OS started his submissions by saying that it was a “pleasure to have [Caroline’s mum] back in court looking so well” and the judge concurred. He said that Caroline’s mother had told him she feels “8 out of 10”.

Unlike the previous hearing, this one took place in person, although I observed remotely. Caroline represented herself without her McKenzie friend, Arthur Stokes, who was unavailable. Her mother attended court, together with Caroline’s father and partner.

Counsel for the local authority maintained that there remained a significant risk of Caroline reverting to the behaviour identified in the October 2024 judgment. Particular emphasis was placed on the dispute over the camera system. Caroline had continued to argue that audio would enable her to reassure her mother in an emergency, but the local authority maintained that it would also allow her to direct her mother and interfere with the carers. It submitted that there was no care benefit to restoring audio and that Caroline’s mother herself did not want it.

At this point in the hearing, Mrs Justice Arbuthnot questioned whether all of the injunction terms remained necessary and explored whether a more limited approach might be appropriate. She said that one option was a “pick and mix” approach, so the first injunction (relating to installing “any camera, listening equipment or loudspeaker in [P’s]’s property, whether live-feed only, or live-feed plus recording”) could be left for “say 12 months”. She said she was conscious that there had been proceedings for “two to three years” – with the implication that it might be appropriate to bring proceedings to a conclusion rather than returning to court every six months.

Counsel for the Official Solicitor similarly acknowledged that the proceedings should not continue indefinitely. However, he argued that Caroline’s continuing wish to restore the audio system demonstrated why at least some protection remained necessary. He suggested that the first injunction term, preventing the installation of cameras with audio capability, might need to remain in force even if the others were eventually removed.

Caroline explained that her concern about audio arose from previous occasions when she had used the system to reassure her mother after falls. She said that she wanted only to be able to communicate with her mother in an emergency and described herself as her mother’s primary carer. She accepted that she could sometimes be overprotective but denied that her motivation was to control her mother.

Caroline and her father criticise the court

In her submissions to the court, Caroline returned to the findings made in October 2024. She reiterated that she continued to dispute aspects of the fact-finding judgment, including findings relating to force-feeding and other incidents. She accepted that she had to live with the court’s decision but maintained that some of the events had been misunderstood or mischaracterised. The judge responded that those findings had been made after hearing the evidence and would not be revisited.

Caroline’s father also addressed the court, in a statement Caroline read out for him. He expressed the family’s view that the proceedings had had a profound impact on their private family life and urging the court to bring the litigation to an end. He used the term “Totalitarian State” in his statement.

After hearing Caroline’s and her father’s statements, the judge seemed to have changed her mind. She indicated that, rather than just keeping the first injunction term about audio on the camera, as she had suggested earlier in the hearing, she was now minded to keep them all.  She remained concerned about the risk of Caroline reverting to the behaviour identified in the fact-finding judgment. While acknowledging the progress that had been made and recognising Caroline’s commitment to her mother, she considered it significant that Caroline continued to reject important findings made by the court and remained determined to restore the audio system despite her mother’s wishes.

Following a short adjournment, the parties discussed whether the injunction terms might instead be replaced by undertakings from Caroline. This would have required her to give what the judge called “just promises to the court” not to do what the injunction terms currently forbade her from doing.

Caroline declined to give “undertakings”. She said she found them “scary”. Although she would have preferred the injunction terms to be removed altogether, she said she would rather they remained than give “undertakings”. I don’t find this reaction surprising, given that she could have gone to prison in January 2025 for breaching previous undertakings. Undertakings are also generally in force “until further order of the court” – so forever, unless they are discharged by the court at some point in the future

Mrs Justice Arbuthnot ultimately concluded that the injunction terms should continue for a further six months. She accepted that Caroline’s mother was now living successfully under the revised care arrangements. She also recognised Caroline’s obvious love for her mother and the improvements that had taken place since the fact-finding hearing. Nevertheless, she remained satisfied that the injunction continued to provide appropriate protection while the parties adjusted to the new arrangements.

The court did, however, remove the term preventing Caroline from moving her mother to another residence (11), leaving the remaining ten terms in force. It also clarified that the order did not prevent Caroline from discussing her mother’s day-to-day care with carers where they invited her views, addressing concerns that ordinary communication might place her in breach of the injunction.

The judge made clear again that she wished these proceedings to end. A final hearing was listed for 8 October 2026 to determine whether the remaining terms of the injunction should continue and, if possible, to conclude the litigation. I plan to observe this hearing.

Amanda Hill is a PhD student at the School of Journalism, Media and Culture at Cardiff University. Her research focuses on the Court of Protection, exploring family experiences, media representations and social media activism. She is a core team member of OJCOP. She is also a daughter of a P in a Court of Protection case and has been a Litigant in Person. She is mainly on LinkedIn (here), but also sometimes on X (@AmandaAPHill).

Appendix

In chronological order, starting with the most recent down to the earliest:

[1] Caroline Grady can be named after Celia Kitzinger made a successful application to the court for reporting restrictions to be varied. There is a  published judgment about the application (Norfolk County Council v CA & Ors [2025] EWCOP 16 (T3) in April 2025)

[2] In addition to observing the hearings, I have corresponded with Caroline and interviewed both her and her McKenzie friend, Arthur Stokes, as part of my PhD research, and I draw on this research in writing this blog. I also received the parties’ position statements for both hearings which helped my understanding of the issues before the court, and which I use for writing this blog. I have also drawn on the published judgments.

[3] We’ve published five blogs about it since March 2024 (as listed in the Appendix), the most recent in September 2025 when we reported Caroline’s response to what she called the “vile judgment” (Norfolk County Council v CA & Ors [2024] EWCOP 64 (T3)).

[4] Except for the January 2025 committal hearing