The irony and the AGNI: After years of traumatic DOLS experiences, P now no longer meets the criteria

By Sandra and Joe Preston, 31st July 2026

Joe’s mother has Alzheimer’s disease and has been subject to multiple short-term DOLS assessments over the course of almost five years, both before the conclusion of s.21a proceedings on 10^th June 2025 and subsequently.  We have all experienced these assessments as intrusive, distressing and unhelpful.  And now, after all that, we are told that post-AGNI, she no longer meets the criteria for being deprived of her liberty.

We wrote about the s.21a proceedings in our previous blog post (A court hearing and 23 visits from 16 officials: Family doubt that ‘Deprivation of liberty’ is working in the public interest).  At that point, Joe’s mum had been  living in a care home where she was safe, cared for and generally content. The only thing that caused her real distress was the Deprivation of Liberty process itself – when someone from the Supervisory Body took it upon themselves to interrogate her as to where she would like to live.  This could unsettle her for days at a time. The first DOLS authorisation was issued in May 2021, valid only for three months “to ascertain whether P’s behaviour constituted an active and consistent objection to her placement”.   This was the beginning of a period of short-term DOLS assessments involving 23 visits from 16 different officials and a s.21A court hearing, before remaining in her placement (her purported ‘deprivation of liberty’) was determined to be in her best interests.

We hoped that, after this court hearing, and a carefully worded order from the judge, that would be an end to repeated and disruptive short-term DOLS assessments and authorisations for her and that she would continue to reside in the care home where she had spent four and a half years living as happily as her condition would allow. 

Sadly, this was not to be.  Just weeks later Joe’s mother had a series of unexplained falls in her care home, the most serious of which led to her being hospitalised with subdural haematomata.  She spent several weeks in hospital because her care home admitted that her care needs had increased beyond what they could provide and a new placement with 1:1 support had to be identified.  The lengthy hospital stay meant that a short-term DoLS authorisation had to be put in place, and once she took up residence in the newly identified nursing home a further DoLS was authorised for six months.   

A period of relative stability followed while Joe’s mother adjusted to her new environment.  The challenge for us was coming to terms with the new phase of her illness – her speech and cognition were severely impaired, her resistance to personal care was challenging, covert medication had to be authorised, and her falls risk meant 1:1 support was essential.  We breathed a huge sigh of relief when the Best Interests Assessor (BIA) rang in May 2026 to say they had just visited Joe’s mother and were going to recommend she be granted a 12-month standard DOLS authorisation.  This would have been her first 12-month authorisation in five years, had it been finalised before 2nd June 2026.

On 2nd June 2026 the Supreme Court handed down the AGNI judgment and we were left wondering whether Joe’s mother would continue to be deprived of her liberty as a matter of law.  Nothing had changed in the nature of her care or confinement and the Managing Authority told us they would carry on processing their DoLS applications in the same way.  The only guidance we could find left us puzzling over what a multi-factorial assessment would look like and whether Joe’s mother could ever be deemed to give valid consent.

We were not surprised when the BIA who had carried out the DoLS assessment in May 2026 informed us a few weeks later that they would be conducting a review to determine whether Joe’s mother would still require a DoLS authorisation post-AGNI.  The conclusion was that although she was unable to give valid consent, she was not objecting to her placement and was mostly compliant with her care.  Although there was some resistance to personal care, this was illness-related rather than an objection to her placement; she had a tendency to wander, but was not actively looking for the exits or attempting to leave; her medication was administered covertly on health grounds and did not include any chemical restraint type medication; 1:1 support was in place for her safety rather than to manage challenging behaviour.  Her current care arrangements were therefore deemed proportionate to her needs, given her diagnosis and condition, so she no longer met the criteria for needing a DoLS authorisation.

REFLECTIONS

We have asked ourselves umpteen times over the years what DoLS have ever done for Joe’s mother. Our Court of Protection experience left us with a very jaundiced view of the whole process which, from our perspective, seemed to benefit lawyers, IMCAs and RPPRs more than it did the vulnerable person whose freedom was restricted because they lacked the mental capacity to consent to their care or treatment.  How ironic in Joe’s mother’s case that something that took so long and was so painful is no longer considered to be necessary.

Hopefully now, post-AGNI, we can be left to care and advocate for Joe’s mother as we have always sought to do, and the DoLS focus can rightfully shift to those vulnerable individuals who really are deprived of their liberty and don’t have anyone to advocate on their behalf.  As family members, we are glad to be rid of DoLS and confident that our own curiosity and vigilance will help us to raise and deal with any safeguarding concerns, should they arise in future.

Joe and Sandra Preston are the son and daughter-in-law of a former protected party.  They can write about the Court of Protection proceedings under their own names because they successfully applied for a variation to the Transparency Order (you can read about how they did that here: Making it possible for families to tell their Court of Protection stories: How we got the reporting restrictions changed (while P is still alive)).  They  can be contacted through the project email on [email protected].