“And, at the same time the LIP, will be coping with the emotional horror of having no control over what happens to their loved one, and, caring for them.
And, dealing with endless assessments, and professional meetings.
So parents are faced with an impossible Herculean feat, anything but fair., which calls for the utmost transparency of process, not the least.
Particularly, as the court system per se, allows scant accountability .
Despite all this, COP proceedings are deemed fair, and, Human Rights Act s 6 compliant.”
Court of Protection lawyers,warn,that even with ‘watertight’ reporting restrictions, anonymity of those subject to proceedings, cannot always be guaranteed.
They say that although transparency was important, ‘there is a price to be paid’.
But, is it in lawyers interests to say this, and, what is this price?
And, more crucially, what is the price paid for secrecy, and, is secrecy necessary, and where does it leave accountability ?
See the £3 bn haul COP had already amassed in 2009
Read the power to imprison loving sister for 7 weeks until released by court of appeal. This is COP 2017
Lord Falconer, creator of the Mental Capacity Act , proposed its hearings be in public.
But, after ‘consultations’, not including the media, with 27 respondents, 11 for public hearings, and 10 against, the Court of Protection Rules 2007 closed the court.
A Daily Mail campaign, scandals exposure, and the COP, being …
View original post 506 more words