Resolving contact issues in the Court of Protection

Ann Stanyer considers whether the law offers sufficient protection for family contact in care settings

The Court of Protection continues to grapple with disputes over family contact, with recent case law highlighting the tension between residents’ rights, care providers’ responsibilities and the practical limits of the court’s jurisdiction.
As the government considers reforms to visiting rights in health and care settings, practitioners should be alert to the protections afforded by reg 9A and their impact on contact restrictions.

A review of judgments reported in the Court of Protection since January 2025 indicates that some 25% of those cases involved issues surrounding contact with a protected party. This issue has been brought into sharp focus by the case of SB v PB (by her litigation friend, the Official Solicitor) v Bolton Borough Council [2026] EWCOP 21, as well as by the Department of Health and Social Care’s (DHSC’s) press release, in March, indicating government action following a review of the visiting rights for people in health and care settings.

It is hardly surprising that cases involving contact

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content

If you are already a subscriber sign in

...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

Resolving contact issues in the Court of Protection

Issue: 8167 / Categories: Features , Court of Protection , Family

Ann Stanyer considers whether the law offers sufficient protection for family contact in care settings

The Court of Protection continues to grapple with disputes over family contact, with recent case law highlighting the tension between residents’ rights, care providers’ responsibilities and the practical limits of the court’s jurisdiction.
As the government considers reforms to visiting rights in health and care settings, practitioners should be alert to the protections afforded by reg 9A and their impact on contact restrictions.

It is hardly surprising that cases

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content

If you are already a subscriber sign in

...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

SourceURL:

Links:

E-newsletter Sign-Up

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All

Gateley Legal—Jack Kelly

Gateley Legal expands Midlands residential development team

Gibson Dunn—Richard Surtees

Gibson Dunn adds employee benefits and executive compensation practice in London with partner Richard Surtees

Laytons ETL—Alec Cameron

Laytons ETL appoints new partner and head of intellectual property disputes

NEWS

Read All

NLJ this week: Property cases reshape established principles

A series of recent decisions has clarified important principles across property law, from perpetuities to lease renewals and public rights over land

NLJ this week: Stress ruling raises the bar for employers

Employers cannot rely on wellbeing services alone to defend workplace stress claims after a High Court decision awarding almost £1m to an overworked employee

NLJ this week: Can Manchesterism revive access to justice?

Andy Burnham's brand of 'Manchesterism' could offer fresh thinking on legal aid and access to justice if it reaches Westminster, according to Roger Smith, NLJ columnist and former director of JUSTICE

NLJ this week: Constitutional conventions tested as power changes hands

The constitutional fallout from a change of prime minister, rather than the politics, is under scrutiny as questions arise over the limits of executive authority in a leadership transition

NLJ this week: Lawyers must become product designers

The legal profession is undergoing a fundamental shift from selling services to creating technology-enabled products, according to Professor Luke Mason, Head of School of Law at Regent's University London

Error message

Resolving contact issues in the Court of Protection

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Gateley Legal—Jack Kelly

Gibson Dunn—Richard Surtees

Laytons ETL—Alec Cameron