Judge grants order to protect couple from 'abusive' son
Monday 25 October 2010
The High Court has made a "highly unusual" order protecting an elderly couple from their allegedly abusive son.
Sir Nicholas Wall, President of the Family Division, ruled that he had jurisdiction to grant a local authority's application for a non-molestation injunction against DL, who is in his 50s.
The authority - which like DL, his 90-year-old disabled mother and 85-year-old father cannot be identified - accepted that the couple were capable of managing their own affairs and of deciding whether DL should continue to live under their roof.
But, it stepped in because it felt it owed a duty to them to protect them from DL's allegedly "aggressive" conduct.
The judge said that the authority had documented incidents going back to 2005 which, it said, included physical assaults, verbal threats, and DL controlling where his parents moved in the house or outside and who might visit them.
"There have also been, it says, consistent reports that DL is seeking to coerce Mr L into transferring the ownership of the house into DL's name and that he has also placed considerable pressure on both his parents to have Mrs L moved into a care home against her wishes."
The authority recognised that Mrs L, in particular, wished to preserve her relationship with her son and did not want any proceedings taken against him.
She worried that, if steps were taken to remove him, he might at worst commit suicide or, at best, she might lose contact.
The judge said the authority had rejected using the criminal law, applying to the Court of Protection, seeking an anti-social behaviour order or applying under the Housing Act, and he agreed that none of those remedies was currently appropriate.
Instead, it argued that the court had authority, under its inherent jurisdiction to protect vulnerable adults and under the Local Government Act, to make an injunction restraining DL, although it emphasised that it was not seeking to exclude him from the house.
Making public today his reasons for granting the "highly unusual" application earlier this month, the judge said that he had heard only one side, and made no findings of fact.
The authority had decided to apply without giving notice to DL partly because it feared that this might provoke the violence it sought to prevent.
Nothing interfered with DL's right to apply for the order to be set aside, and any future hearing would take place in his locality.
Olympic diver has made his modelling debut for Adidas
Thailand beach murders: Thai PM suggests 'attractive' female tourists cannot expect to be safe wearing bikinis
Scottish independence: Final opinion polls show undecided voters could swing the result either way
Isis release 'Flames of War' video warning Obama of attacks troops could face in Iraq
Hitler’s former food taster reveals the horrors of the Wolf’s Lair
Alan Henning: British Muslim leaders unite to call on Isis to release UK hostage
Daniele Watts: Django Unchained actress detained by Los Angeles police after being mistaken for a prostitute
Scottish independence referendum: A nation divided against itself
The political class is doing what Hitler couldn’t – destroying Britain
Scottish independence: Nationalist leader Jim Sillars threatens pro-union companies with 'day of reckoning' after independence
Portuguese academic says British are 'filthy, violent and drunk'
Scottish independence: David Cameron is becoming the 'George Bush of Britain'
- 2 Scottish independence: Learn from Quebec's mistakes and beware of promises. Vote Yes.
- 3 A bottle of wine a day is not bad for you and abstaining is worse than drinking, scientist claims
- 5 Hitler’s former food taster reveals the horrors of the Wolf’s Lair