Judge slams local authority for "social engineering"

Forcing a woman with a low IQ to take contraception would raise 'profound questions about state intervention', a judge has ruled.

The Court of Protection case concerned Mrs A, a married 29-year-old mother of two, whose IQ of 53 leaves her unable to read, write, tell the time or acknowledge what month it is.

After two babies were removed from Mrs A at birth, a Midlands local authority sought a court ruling that it was in the woman's best interests to be given contraception through force, if necessary.

Handing down judgment on 11 June, in the presence of Mrs A, Mr Justice Bodey said: 'It is obvious on the facts of this case, that any step towards long-term court imposed contraception by way of physical coercion, with its affinity to enforced sterilisation and shades of social engineering, would raise profound questions about state intervention in private and family life.

'While the issue of the use of force has not been argued out at this hearing, I cannot, on these facts, presently see how it could be acceptable.'

The authority's initial argument was amended to an interim application for a ruling that the woman did not have the capacity to decide whether to use contraception, and that it would be in her best interests for her to be required to use it.

Bodey J accepted the authority's case that Mrs A 'presently lacks capacity to take a decision for herself about contraception', on the grounds that her husband, Mr A, places her under 'coercive pressure' in the matter.

The couple met in 2006, following the birth of Mrs A's two children, later marrying in 2008. Mr A, whose IQ of 65 ranks him in the bottom one per cent of adult cognition, was described as being 'enraged' by the interference of the social workers.

Mrs A's college course coordinator was among several parties to raise concerns about the couple's relationship, eventually sparking the council's decision to take legal action.

'Both article 8 of the ECHR (respect for private and family life) and article 12 (founding a family) are engaged and the above issues raise important questions about state interference in matters of personal and family autonomy,' said Bodey J.

He added: 'The administration of contraception is different from any other medical procedure, since (leaving aside sterilisation) no other medical procedure, or the refusal of it, produces such significant social consequence as the potential creation of a child.'

It was ruled that no injunction against Mr A was necessary to force him to allow his wife to attend meetings with social workers.

Bodey J declined to make an order as to her best interests, instead leaving the decision of what 'appropriate steps' would be required to the council in the event that she did become pregnant again.