Judge upholds care home placement but encourages council to explore ways of facilitating “dignified contact” between mother and daughter

In Re PB (Appeal: Best Interests: Restrictions on Contact in a Care Home), His Honour Judge Burrows upheld a decision of District Judge Helen Jackson that it was in PB's best interests to remain at her current care home, despite restrictions on visits from her daughter, SB.

The case concerned PB, a woman in her late 80s with Parkinson's disease and Alzheimer's, who was residing in a care home at the time of the hearing.

She had previously lived at home with SB and support from care agencies. However, the court heard there had been a history of difficulties between care providers and SB, with a number of agencies ceasing involvement over the years.

The appeal concerned whether the District Judge had erred in concluding that PB's welfare was best served by remaining in the care home and accepting restrictions on contact, imposed following a breakdown in relations between SB and the provider.

Judge Burrows said: “As an appeal, this is not a rehearing of the welfare decision. The task for this court is to determine whether the judge at first instance erred in law, misdirected herself as to the applicable legal principles, or reached a conclusion which was outside the generous ambit of reasonable decisions open to her.”

Outlining the background to the case, Judge Burrows referred to a letter from the care home that PB was residing in, which stated that following “incidents with SB”, it was considering either serving notice on PB to leave the home or taking legal advice about barring SB from the premises altogether.

Restrictions were subsequently introduced, including supervised contact.

SB denied the allegations made against her, and challenged the decision by the care home.

In January 2026, District Judge Helen Jackson determined it was in PB's best interests to remain at the care home, and that contact between her and her daughter, SB, should continue to be supervised and limited.

Appealing the judge’s decision, SB submitted that the judge impermissibly allowed the care home's position to dictate the outcome of the case and failed to conduct a structured proportionality analysis, particularly in light of Section 73 of the Care Act 2014 and the care home's status as a public authority for Human Rights Act purposes.

Judge Burrows said: “This is a serious issue for the Court of Protection as well as public authorities responsible for those who reside in residential care.

“Care homes are almost invariably private, i.e. they are owned and operated by private companies or individuals. Their residents occupy their places pursuant to contractual arrangements between them, or those contracting on their behalf, and the operators of the home. That means the operator has the right to terminate those contractual arrangements in circumstances that may vary from home to home, and subject to differing provisions in contracts. For instance, the residents must pay fees, and if they do not, they can have their occupation terminated. Equally, if residents or their families are disruptive to care home staff or other residents, the owners of the care home may act against them. This may involve excluding family members altogether or restricting and supervising contact.”

Analysing the case, he found the District Judge had been entitled to conclude that PB's care needs were significant, including a need for 24-hour nursing care and repositioning throughout the night, and that there was “no realistic proposal to meet those needs safely in the community”.

He meanwhile rejected arguments that the court had placed undue reliance on a Decision Support Tool assessment, finding that it had been considered alongside wider social work, nursing and occupational therapy evidence.

Judge Burrows endorsed the lower court's decision not to hold a fact-finding hearing into disputed allegations concerning SB's conduct.

The judgment noted that while no findings had been made about responsibility for previous disputes, the court was entitled to take account of the fact that difficulties had arisen with multiple care providers and that similar issues had emerged at the care home.

He said: “The District Judge did not disregard the Article 8 obligations. She was faced with evidence that, unless contact was restricted and supervised, the care home was likely to terminate PB's placement. The judge was entitled to treat that risk as real, whether or not the allegations underpinning it were disputed.

“In those circumstances, the judge was required to choose between legally and practically available options. The Court of Protection has no power to compel a private provider to continue a placement against its will, nor to rewrite contractual arrangements. That limitation is well established.

“The judge balanced:

• the importance of contact between PB and SB;
• the interference with family life occasioned by supervision and limitation; and
• the materially greater harm that would likely result from the sudden loss of PB's only available placement.”

Judge Burrows continued: “While the proportionality analysis could have been more fully articulated, it is apparent from the judgment read as a whole that the correct approach was applied. The restriction on contact was not treated as an end in itself, but as a contingent and time-limited measure adopted to preserve PB's residential stability. This Court will not intervene simply because a judgment might have been expressed differently. The question is whether the outcome was one the judge was entitled to reach.

“In the circumstances of this case, where no alternative placement was available and the court was faced with a binary choice, I am satisfied that the judge was entitled to conclude that the maintenance of a stable placement was, for the time being, in PB's best interests, even at the cost of restricted contact.”

Dismissing the appeal, Judge Burrows said he did not consider the judge made any errors of law, “nor that she reached a decision she was not properly able to reach”.

However, he strongly encouraged the local authority and the care provider to “continue exploring ways of facilitating meaningful and dignified contact between PB and SB, consistent with PB's welfare and safety”.

Lottie Winson