Court removes mother as deputy for daughter's affairs

7 Feb 2025Court Report

Court of Protection rules to remove a mother as deputy for her daughter's property and affairs due to mismanagement

Court of Protection rules on deputyship mismanagement

In a significant ruling, the Court of Protection decided to remove JO as the deputy for her daughter AECO's property and affairs. The decision was made by HHJ Cronin following concerns raised by the Public Guardian about JO's management of her daughter's financial matters.

AECO, who has Retts Syndrome, requires a deputy to manage her property and affairs due to her lack of capacity. JO had served as her deputy since 2014. However, the Public Guardian filed an application to discharge JO from this role, citing multiple issues with her conduct.

The court heard that JO had failed to file annual supervision reports on time, did not pay supervision fees, mixed AECO's funds with her own, occupied AECO's property without contributing to costs, and engaged in concerning financial transactions. JO also failed to cooperate with the Public Guardian and professionals involved in the case.

JO, who represented herself at the hearing, acknowledged some of the failures, such as not filing reports and mixing funds. She explained that she had been confused about certain requirements and had misunderstood communications from the Public Guardian.

Despite JO's objections and her expressed willingness to continue as deputy, HHJ Cronin concluded that it was in AECO's best interests to remove JO from the role. The court emphasised the importance of proper financial management and the potential risks posed by JO's actions, including the loss of AECO's funds and potential breaches of housing benefit rules.

The court confirmed the appointment of Jenny Pierce, a panel deputy, to take over the management of AECO's property and affairs. The decision reflects the court's preference for appointing a family member as a deputy when possible, but in this case, it found no suitable alternative within the family.

This ruling highlights the court's commitment to ensuring that deputies act in the best interests of those they represent, particularly when managing financial affairs. The case underscores the need for deputies to adhere strictly to their duties and cooperate with oversight bodies.