ChatterBank0 min ago
Court Of Protection: Pensioner Jailed, Cat Has Anonymity - Utter Madness
// A grandmother of 71 has been jailed for refusing to move an elderly man from a care home where she believes he is happy.
Teresa Kirk was given six months in prison by a judge at the secretive Court of Protection, it emerged yesterday.
Mr Justice Newton ruled she had disobeyed orders to move the 80-year-old from his native Portugal to a care home in Britain chosen by social workers.
The Daily Mail is unable to name the elderly man or to describe his relationship to Mrs Kirk. Even the name of his cat cannot be published for legal reasons.
http://
To add insult to injury, Mrs Kirk had power of attorney over the mans finacial affairs and was attempting to sell his house to pay for his care in Portugal. The Court has seized the mans house and handed his financial affairs to the Court Solictor who is now busily spending this man' money on expensive court fees.
Teresa Kirk was given six months in prison by a judge at the secretive Court of Protection, it emerged yesterday.
Mr Justice Newton ruled she had disobeyed orders to move the 80-year-old from his native Portugal to a care home in Britain chosen by social workers.
The Daily Mail is unable to name the elderly man or to describe his relationship to Mrs Kirk. Even the name of his cat cannot be published for legal reasons.
http://
To add insult to injury, Mrs Kirk had power of attorney over the mans finacial affairs and was attempting to sell his house to pay for his care in Portugal. The Court has seized the mans house and handed his financial affairs to the Court Solictor who is now busily spending this man' money on expensive court fees.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Gromit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
The man was born in Portugal but lived in the UK for fifty years and the court order in 2014 said he should be moved to a care home in the south east. She ignored that Order and the both went to Portugal.
It is not as if he has always lived in Portugal and is being uprooted, he should not have been moved outwith the UK in the first place according to the Order.
It is not as if he has always lived in Portugal and is being uprooted, he should not have been moved outwith the UK in the first place according to the Order.
-- answer removed --
As Corby says the woman defied a court order to put him in a care home in the UK and took him to Portugal. We simply do not know any details at all.
The Court of Protection operates in complete secrecy due to the nature of it's cases, protection of those who are vulnerable and unable to take care of themselves.
The Court of Protection operates in complete secrecy due to the nature of it's cases, protection of those who are vulnerable and unable to take care of themselves.
-- answer removed --
I said a south east care home but if was a south west one. ITV site says, "The man, identified only as MM, was born in Madeira and had lived in Devon for around 50 years.
According to court transcripts, the man had a "large circle of friends" but did not have the "capacity" to make decisions about his residence and care.
In 2014, Mrs Kirk removed MM from his home to her residence in Sussex. Then in 2015, she took the man to Portugal, where he remains.
However, this defied court orders and recommendations from social workers that it was in MM's best interests to remain in a care home in south-west England."
According to court transcripts, the man had a "large circle of friends" but did not have the "capacity" to make decisions about his residence and care.
In 2014, Mrs Kirk removed MM from his home to her residence in Sussex. Then in 2015, she took the man to Portugal, where he remains.
However, this defied court orders and recommendations from social workers that it was in MM's best interests to remain in a care home in south-west England."
-- answer removed --
// The man was born in Portugal but lived in the UK for fifty years and the court order in 2014 said he should be moved to a care home in the south east. She ignored that Order and the both went to Portugal. //
The version of the timeline is different in the article...
// When his health began to decline because of dementia in 2014, Mrs Kirk moved him into her home in Sussex. After social workers said he should live in a care home, she travelled with him to Portugal instead.
In June 2015 the court ordered that he should be returned to Britain. The man’s health declined further and he went into a care home on the Algarve in September last year. //
So the Court Order came AFTER he was already in Portugal for several months.
The version of the timeline is different in the article...
// When his health began to decline because of dementia in 2014, Mrs Kirk moved him into her home in Sussex. After social workers said he should live in a care home, she travelled with him to Portugal instead.
In June 2015 the court ordered that he should be returned to Britain. The man’s health declined further and he went into a care home on the Algarve in September last year. //
So the Court Order came AFTER he was already in Portugal for several months.
Quote here , 'When his health began to decline because of dementia in 2014, Mrs Kirk moved him into her home in Sussex. After social workers said he should live in a care home, she travelled with him to Portugal instead'
Ok, I agree it was the SS rather than the court, but it amounts to the same thing, SS can only make such orders under the jurisdiction of the family court. It then got upgraded to the Court of Protection.
Ok, I agree it was the SS rather than the court, but it amounts to the same thing, SS can only make such orders under the jurisdiction of the family court. It then got upgraded to the Court of Protection.
one judgment in 2012 ordered that a pregnant woman should undergo a forced caesarean birth following a breakdown.
Hang on, that rings a bell.
http://
This turned out to be somewhat misleading
http://
Again, I find myself wondering if we're hearing absolutely all the story here. That the hearings are secret, and other countries are involved, increases the likelihood of misunderstanding and misreporting. On the face of it, this sounds foolish, draconian and oppressive, and perhaps it is. But I'd like to hear both sides. In particular, why exactly do social services care? Is this being done under laws framed to prevent children being kidnapped by parents?
Hang on, that rings a bell.
http://
This turned out to be somewhat misleading
http://
Again, I find myself wondering if we're hearing absolutely all the story here. That the hearings are secret, and other countries are involved, increases the likelihood of misunderstanding and misreporting. On the face of it, this sounds foolish, draconian and oppressive, and perhaps it is. But I'd like to hear both sides. In particular, why exactly do social services care? Is this being done under laws framed to prevent children being kidnapped by parents?
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
Yes that is the 'offence' but the court order was in response to the removal of the man from the UK against instructions from SS ( who must have had the consent of the 'Family Court' to issue such instruction)
It is no point arguing over it as the secrecy will never be lifted and we will never be permitted to know the full story.
It is no point arguing over it as the secrecy will never be lifted and we will never be permitted to know the full story.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.