K, Re

A capacitous adult is entitled to decide whether to have contact with a parent. The inherent jurisdiction may protect a vulnerable person from undue pressure, but it does not authorise the court to impose contact where the adult’s wishes are clear, coherent and rationally expressed. A renewed capacity assessment requires an evidential basis showing a change in circumstances. The court should not require the adult to attend court for questioning about the refusal of contact where that course has no proper jurisdictional or welfare justification.

The applicant father sought direct contact with his adult son, L, and argued that the court should intervene because L lacked capacity to decide contact. He also sought the removal of L’s litigation friend on allegations of pressure, collusion and fabricated evidence.

The court had previously determined that L had capacity to decide where he lived and with whom he had contact, while retaining the inherent jurisdiction to protect him from family pressure. The Court of Appeal had dismissed an earlier appeal, and permission to appeal the 2013 determination had been refused. The issues were whether there was any evidential basis to revisit capacity, whether the inherent jurisdiction could support the requested contact, and whether L should participate directly in the proceedings.

1. Application to remove litigation friend. The allegations against the litigation friend had no evidential foundation. The application was wholly without merit and was dismissed.
2. Capacity. The previous determination that L had capacity to decide where he lived and who he saw remained operative. There was no evidence of any change in capacity. L had repeatedly and consistently expressed that he did not want direct contact with his father, while accepting that he might receive a sensible card. His views were expressed coherently and on a rational basis.
3. Inherent jurisdiction. The inherent jurisdiction had been retained to protect L as a vulnerable adult, particularly from pressure within the family. There was no evidence that L was being pressured not to see his father. The jurisdiction did not provide a basis for overriding the decision of an adult who had capacity.
4. Participation and contact. There was no justification for requiring L to attend court and be questioned by his father about his refusal of contact. Such a course lacked a proper jurisdictional basis and would be wholly unjustified. The court could not impose direct or indirect contact, although the parties were encouraged to discuss whether L’s wish to receive a card could be met.
5. Outcome. The father’s contact application was totally without merit and had no prospect of success. It was dismissed. Any further applications concerning L were to be referred to the judge initially. The court noted that a civil restraint order might be sought if further applications were made without foundation.

The judgment describes earlier proceedings concerning L, including a Court of Appeal appeal which was dismissed and a later refused application for permission to appeal. No citation for those decisions is stated in the judgment.