A man left with an acquired brain injury following an assault more than 20 years ago has been discharged from High Court wardship.
Having concluded that the man lacks capacity to make decisions about his finances, welfare, care and treatment, Mr Justice Mark Heslin appointed a decision-making representative (DMR) to make decisions on his behalf, including to protect his assets.
He was ruling on an application by the general solicitor for wards of court, appointed to represent the man’s interest in wardship following the death of a relative, for orders and declarations under the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act, which became fully operational last year.
Aged in his 50s and admitted to wardship 15 years ago, the man has adult children and lives apart from his wife.
China may be better prepared for Trump this time
The best restaurants to visit in Britain and continental Europe right now
Planning regulator Niall Cussen: We can overcome the housing crisis, ‘if we put our minds to it’
Gladiator II review: Don’t blame Paul Mescal but there’s no good reason for this jumbled sequel to exist
In his recent judgment, Mr Justice Heslin said it was a “very tragic” situation because the man suffered an acquired brain injury following an assault in the late 1990s. He resides at a certain address where he receives supports, including from mental health and community brain injury services. He has significant physical health issues.
Under the Act, the options available to the court were to declare the man does not lack capacity; lacks capacity unless a co-decision maker is appointed; or lacks capacity even with assistance of a co-decision maker with the effect the court should appoint a DMR.
Based on the evidence, the judge found the man lacks capacity, even with assistance of a co-decision maker, to make decisions concerning his health, including care and treatment, welfare, property and financial affairs, and a DMR should be appointed.
Having heard the man receives great support from a member of the HSE’s community brain injury team and from his wife, the judge paid tribute to both. The man’s wife, he noted, did not wish to be involved in making any financial decisions on his behalf.
The man had not challenged medical evidence from a consultant psychiatrist, including that he appeared unable to weigh financial information such as about the need to plan and budget and the risk of exploitation by those occasionally residing in his house.
He wanted another person to have decision-making power over his medication management due to his previous overdose and ongoing impulsive tendencies, the psychiatrist’s report stated. She considered his ability to weigh information relating to his personal welfare needs was also significantly impaired.
The medical evidence was “entirely uncontested” and the court can safely, and indeed must, rely on it, the judge said.
The man had suggested that either his wife or the HSE community brain injury worker could be his DMR but neither were in a position to fulfil that role, the judge noted.
In those circumstances, the man was satisfied a DMR would be nominated by the President of the High Court from a panel established, in line with the Act, by the Decision Support Service (DSS).
Making an order appointing that nominee, an independent social worker, the judge said she is an “entirely appropriate person” to fulfil that role. The Act provides the DMR will account to the DSS in relation to the man’s affairs.
- Listen to our Inside Politics Podcast for the latest analysis and chat
- Sign up for push alerts and have the best news, analysis and comment delivered directly to your phone
- Find The Irish Times on WhatsApp and stay up to date
