Protecting a vulnerable relative when they lose the capacity to make their own decisions is an emotionally exhausting challenge. When a loved one requires specialised, around-the-clock nursing care, family members naturally want to remain deeply involved. But what happens when a family's intense devotion leads to a dangerous relationship breakdown with professional caregivers?
The Court of Protection (CoP) looked at this exact dilemma. If a private care home threatens to evict a resident due to a relative's disruptive conduct, the courts can—and will—prioritise residential stability over a family’s right to unrestricted contact.
Background:
PB is a lady in her late 80s who suffers from advanced Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s Disease and lacks capacity regarding her care. For years, she lived at home with her daughter, SB, supported by state-funded care packages. However, this domestic setup eventually crumbled as eight separate care agencies withdrew their services, all pointing to an unsustainable, highly combative working relationship with the daughter. With no viable domestic care options remaining, the mother was moved into a private residential care home.
The care home management also experienced escalating conflict with the daughter regarding daily nursing tasks. The situation reached a breaking point on 26 November 2025, when the care home issued a formal letter alleging that the daughter was routinely disrupting care and directly endangering her mother’s physical safety, making it clear that they would likely terminate PB’s placement altogether unless her contact with SB was strictly limited and closely supervised.
To prevent the immediate loss of the placement, a Lower Court Judge upheld these strict contact limits as a temporary, protective measure, choosing not to halt the process for an exhaustive trial over the disputed behaviour. SB appealed the decision, arguing that the Court had unlawfully capitulated to the provider's commercial leverage, ignored human rights obligations, and abdicated its responsibility to protect family life.
Decision:
The CoP dismissed the appeal, ruling that the initial Judge had acted entirely lawfully within a complex legal framework. The judgement acknowledged that, under Section 73 of the Care Act 2014, private care providers funding state-regulated care are treated as public authorities for the purposes of Section 6 of the Human Rights Act (HRA) 1998, thereby directly engaging the Article 8 right to respect for private and family life. Further, Regulation 9A of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 (or HSCA 2008), imposes a positive obligation on providers to facilitate family visits using the least restrictive measures possible under the oversight of the Care Quality Commission (CQC).
However, the Court emphasised that regulatory duties do not change commercial realities. Care homes operate under contractual arrangements that allow providers to terminate residency. The welfare court has no legal jurisdiction to rewrite these private contracts or block a lawful eviction pursued through the County Court. Faced with a binary choice between a restricted but stable placement and a sudden, chaotic eviction into a community vacuum, a Judge is entitled to treat the preservation of the placement as a core welfare priority. Protecting a vulnerable adult's roof is not an abdication of judicial duty; rather, it is a recognition that losing a specialised placement causes materially greater harm than continuing a less-than-ideal, restricted arrangement.
Implications:
For families, attorneys, and deputies, this ruling conveys several important lessons. It confirms that, while you have a legal right to fight for family contact, care providers hold significant leverage through their standard contractual termination rights. If a provider threatens eviction due to relationship friction, the Court will prioritise keeping your loved one safely housed over your right to unsupervised visits, focusing on present realities rather than resolving historic disputes.
Additionally, this judgement outlines that these restrictive contact arrangements are never permanently fixed or immune to challenge. Local authorities are thus placed under a continuous, vigilant duty during Section 21A reviews to keep contact limits under active and meaningful scrutiny. Any further unauthorised reductions in contact, or any material change in circumstances—such as a shift in the provider's stance or the emergence of a realistic alternative placement—will require the welfare balance to be revisited. Finally, even when formal court proceedings end, ongoing concerns regarding the quality of day-to-day care must be continuously managed through the standard deprivation of liberty authorisation safeguards (DoLS) under Schedule A1 of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005.