header-logo header-logo

10 July 2014
Issue: 7614 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Court orders woman to have caesarean

A woman with learning difficulties, autism and “an extraordinary obstetric history” lacks capacity to make decisions about her healthcare and must have a caesarean, the Court of Protection has ruled.

The Mental Health and the Acute Trust v DD & Anor [2014] EWCOP 11 concerned DD, who is expecting her sixth child. Her previous children were taken into care after various alarming incidents. DD also hid her later pregnancies from social workers, refused entry to her home, and declined to attend doctor’s appointments. She had home births in secret, which caused her health complications, including haemorrhage and blood clots. One child was born very prematurely. Another child was discovered in a sickly, undernourished state. She did not maintain contact with her first child, who was adopted by a grandparent. DD was also assessed as having delusional beliefs.

Mr Justice Cobb held that it was in DD’s best interests for her to be conveyed to hospital against her wishes and for a planned caesarean section to be carried out. He authorised the health trust “to take such necessary, reasonable and proportionate measures to give effect to the best interests declaration above to include forced entry into her home, restraint (so that she does not leave the ward pending treatment and/or until it is clinically appropriate for her to be discharged) and sedation”.

He added that he required the trust “to take all reasonable steps to minimise distress to DD and to maintain her dignity”.

Cobb J declined an application to assess DD’s capacity to make decisions about contraception but advised that this be decided “as a matter of urgency and priority” once DD had given birth.

Issue: 7614 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll