“What your mother wants and what is best for P may not be the same thing”: Judge seeks family engagement and clarification of immigration status 

By Maria Maier, 30th July 2026

The young man at the centre of this case lacks capacity to make his own decision about where to live.  This hearing (COP20029884 before District Judge Clarke on 16 of July 2026) was a directions hearing following an application from the Local Authority to move P out of the family home and into an assisted living facility. The key issues relate to P’s immigration status and the lack of engagement from his family

I sent my email request to observe at 8:56am on the morning of the hearing. I copy and pasted the template email from the OJCOPP website and sent it to the court at First Avenue House in London, the headquarters of the Court of Protection, where this case was being heard. I received the joining link at 1:39 pm, together with the Transparency Order. Although I had requested other documents (as set out in the template request), I did not receive any. All parties attended the hearing in person, and I was the only observer. P’s brother was also present, and he reported on the family’s views. However, as he was sitting the furthest away from the camera, I often struggled to hear him clearly. The hearing was initially delayed, and, due to technical difficulties, I was not admitted until 2:17 pm.

When I joined, DJ Clarke asked me to turn on my camera, introduce myself and confirm that I had read and understood the Transparency Order. She then asked each party to re-introduce themselves and requested that counsel for the Local Authority, Ms Amelia Culverwell, provide a summary of the issues while she read the Local Authority’s draft order. The Local Authority in this case was the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. P was represented through the Official Solicitor by Ms Davies. Unfortunately, Ms Davies was not visible on camera, and I was unable to hear her first name clearly. As there appear to be two Court of Protection barristers with the surname Davies, I have not identified her further.

Ms Culverwell explained that this was a directions hearing at which the Local Authority was seeking directions on an application to move P to an assisted living facility.  The Local Authority’s primary concerns about P living at home related to his immigration status and the lack of engagement from his family.

Counsel explained that P does not currently have leave to remain in the United Kingdom and that no attempt has yet been made to regularise his immigration status.

The Local Authority also submitted that the limited communication between P’s family and professionals has affected P’s engagement with Local Authority services and with his college. I learned through the course of the hearing that P has been assessed to lack mental capacity to make decisions about where to live and receive care.

By this point, DJ Clarke had reviewed the draft order. She was critical of the lack of detail and information it contained. One of the first issues she raised was the fact that the draft order referred to two possible placements (Placement A and Placement B). She asked the Local Authority whether it had decided between the two.

Ms Culverwell explained that a place had since become available in Placement A. The Judge then asked whether Placement A placement was equally in P’s best interests. In particular, she asked whether the commute to college or the distance from P’s family home would be longer, and whether the placement would also consist exclusively of male residents.

The Local Authority confirmed that the journey from both placements to college would take less than an hour, that the distance from the family home was roughly the same and that both placements were male-only. DJ Clarke emphasised the importance of college in P’s life, providing not only an educational environment but also support for P’s communication and development.

The Court also considered P’s level of independence. P is at an age where many adults would ordinarily be living independently, but he does not currently have the skills necessary to do so. It is not clear whether he is developing those skills while living at home, particularly given the concerns about his education and the instability of his care arrangements.

DJ Clarke then asked whether the proposed placement was intended to be short-term, with the possibility of becoming long-term, or whether it was intended to be long-term from the outset. The Local Authority confirmed that it was initially a short-term placement, with the possibility of becoming long-term if everything went well. Counsel stated that the Local Authority hoped that the move could take place ‘sooner rather than later’.

DJ Clarke then turned to P’s immigration status. She asked the Local Authority to confirm whether it was seeking a best-interests decision that it was in P’s best interests for his family to engage with professionals and instruct Bindmans solicitors in relation to his immigration status. The Local Authority confirmed that this was the position.

This was not simply a technical immigration issue. Because of his immigration status, P currently has no access to benefits. The Local Authority considered that it was in P’s best interests for his immigration position to be resolved and have agreed to fund legal assistance in relation to the matter.

DJ Clarke then summarised her view of the draft order by stating: ‘This order needs work frankly, but I have an idea of what you want to do and achieve.’

As P’s brother was present at the hearing, the Judge asked him to explain the lack of engagement from P’s family. He explained that P’s mother had been hospitalised and that he and another brother, who was overseas at the time of the hearing, had found it ‘tough’ to care for P.

DJ Clarke acknowledged the difficulties faced by the family but questioned why they had not engaged with professionals when respite accommodation had been offered.

She questioned why P’s mother, who had strong views about what was in P’s best interests, was not present at the hearing. I was unable to hear all of P’s brother’s explanation, but he informed the Court that his mother had still been asleep when he tried to tell her about the hearing and that he had been unable to enter the house to wake her.

DJ Clarke then asked the brother what his mother’s views on the placement were. He stated that his mother thought P should remain at home. However, he did not fully know her reasons why.

DJ Clarke explained that, if there continued to be a lack of engagement from the family there is a risk that the families views will not be known and therefore not included in decision-making. She stated that there was a risk that P could ultimately be placed somewhere with which his family did not agree, because the Court was unable to properly understand their views.

DJ Clarke asked how communication between the family and local authority could be improved. P’s brother suggested that it would be beneficial for there to be one designated point of contact between the family and professionals.

The family had been provided with an ‘expectations document’ before the hearing detailing how the family were expected to engage and communicate with the LA. DJ Clarke reminded P’s brother that the family needed to read and understand it.

The Judge went on to explain that, from her perspective, P’s mother’s hospitalisations had meant that other family members had been required to take on aspects of her caring role. DJ Clarke observed that this had created ‘unsettlement’ for P, as ‘his care is patchy’.

She considered that this instability at home is having a knock-on effect on P. The Court was informed that P has been suspended from college because of a lack of engagement and attendance. Although I was unable to hear all of P’s brother’s explanation, it appeared that P had not been attending college because P’s mother believed that he was not receiving the correct support and that his teachers were not adequately trained to support him. DJ Clarke also raised concerns about the impact of P’s mother’s resistance to her own diagnosis and treatment on the stability of the home environment.

The Judge further explained to P’s brother that, because of P’s immigration status, he currently has no access to benefits. She stated that this was another indication that arrangements were not operating in P’s best interests. The Court was also informed that P’s mother objects to steps being taken to resolve P’s immigration status and is resistant to an application being made for him to obtain leave to remain. P’s brother was unable to explain why this was the case.

Counsel for the Local Authority explained that the family’s lack of communication and engagement had also made it difficult to complete mental capacity assessments and other assessments required in connection with a move to a new placement.

DJ Clarke summarised the difficulty by stating: ‘the difficulty is that what your mother wants and what is best for P may not be the same thing. The decision that I have to make is what is best for P.’

She then asked P’s brother what he thought his mother needed in order to engage with the proceedings.

P’s brother stated that his mother needed to speak to someone in person, as he was concerned that her feelings are not being heard.

The Judge replied that ‘today would have been the best opportunity for her views to be heard’.

She clarified that no decisions would be made at the hearing itself but explained that the Local Authority was asking the Judge to approve the issues set out in the draft order.

The Judge directed the Local Authority to create a communication plan and to obtain P’s mother’s views orally. This should also identify a known and effective method of communication, how frequently communication should take place and how documents and information should be shared. The aim is to reduce the difficulties that have previously arisen between the family and professionals. Counsel for the Local Authority then asked the family to agree among themselves who should act as the main point of contact. The deadline for this was agreed as 20th July.

If the family could not agree on a single point of contact, those individuals who wished to take on that role could put themselves forward and the Local Authority could then select one person.

A virtual meeting between the Local Authority and the family was also listed for 30th July to discuss the family’s views.

In the meantime, DJ Clarke directed the Local Authority to provide an interim care plan, a transition plan for the proposed move and further information about whether a deprivation of liberty authorisation under the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards was already in place or whether one would be required.

The Judge then turned to the Official Solicitor to ask whether P’s wishes and feelings had been ascertained. Ms Davies explained that the Official Solicitor had not yet been able to obtain P’s wishes and feelings because they had been unable to meet with P. Concerns were raised that the family may have been obstructing the Official Solicitor’s attempts to ascertain P’s views.

DJ Clarke informed P’s brother that the Official Solicitor must be able to visit P at home without family members being present in order to obtain his wishes and feelings independently. She clarified that ‘this Court does have powers, which it doesn’t yet wish to exercise, to compel this’.

The Judge emphasised that this process needed to be independent from P’s mother.

Reflections

This was one of the most challenging hearings I have observed. Multiple interrelated issues, including P’s proposed placement, immigration status, education, family engagement and wishes and feelings, were considered simultaneously, and the conversational nature of the hearing made it more difficult to follow how each issue informed the next.

However, I admired the way DJ Clarke managed this complexity. She gave P’s brother an opportunity to explain the difficulties faced by the family and made clear that P’s mother’s views were important. The Judge did not simply treat the family’s lack of engagement as a reason to disregard their views. Instead, she actively explored what might make it possible for P’s mother to participate and directed the Local Authority to create a communication plan to ensure that her views could be heard. (For another example of DJ Clarke’s judicial skill, see see this blog post about “DJ Clarke in action”.)

At the same time, DJ Clarke remained focused on the central question before the Court: what was in P’s best interests? She explained clearly to P’s brother that what his mother wanted and what was best for P might not be the same thing. I thought this struck an important balance. The Court was not there to determine whether P’s family were ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, but to make decisions based on P’s own best interests.

The hearing was also a stark reminder that disagreement and lack of engagement are not the same thing. Family members may have strong views about what should happen, but if they do not engage with professionals or with the proceedings, there is a risk that those views will not be properly understood or taken into account. In P’s case, limited engagement had already contributed to difficulties assessing his needs, understanding his family’s position and obtaining his own wishes and feelings.

I hope that the practical plan put in place by DJ Clarke will enable the family and professionals to collaborate effectively and ensure that the Official Solicitor can obtain P’s wishes and feelings. Ultimately, the decisions being made are about P’s life, and his voice must be at the centre of those decisions.

Post Hearing Actions

Following the hearing, I learnt that under Rule 5.9 of the Court of Protection Rules 2017, non-parties who observe a public hearing are entitled to request a copy of the approved order. As I had not received any documents beyond the Transparency Order before the hearing, I thought obtaining the approved order would help me better understand the details of the case, the directions that had been made and the next procedural steps.

I sent the following email to First Avenue House at [email protected]:

Dear Court Staff,

Please may I have the approved order from this hearing which I observed on 16 July 2026.

My request is made as per COP Rule 5.9.

Supply of documents to a non-party from court records

Rule 5.9(1): Subject to rules 5.12 and 4.3(2), a person who is not a party to proceedings may inspect or obtain from the court records a copy of any judgment or order given or made in public.

Thank you for your support of transparency.

I will amend this blog if, when I receive this document, I learn of any important additional details or become aware of any errors in my report. I hope the approved order will give me a better understanding of how the Court converts the often conversational and wide-ranging discussion that takes place during a directions hearing into clear, practical actions for the parties.

Maria Maier is an aspiring barrister with an interest in the Court of Protection. She is currently working as a Relevant Person’s Representative (RPR) and Rule 1.2 Representative for adults who lack mental capacity and are deprived of their liberty under the Mental Capacity Act (MCA).  She has previously blogged for the Project here: Court approves sedative PRN medication  and Five Practical Tips For Observing Your First Court of Protection Hearing  She will begin her Bar Course studies in September 2026. Her LinkedIn is here.