For families caring for an adult who lacks mental capacity, the Court of Protection has long carried a reputation for caution, particularly when relatives ask to be appointed as a personal welfare deputy. The standard response, drawn from paragraph 8.38 of the Mental Capacity Act Code of Practice, has been that such orders are reserved for “the most difficult cases.” Many families never applied at all, deterred by the assumption that the threshold was too high.
The judgment in Alison Parr v Cheshire East Council [2026] EWCOP 1 changes that conversation.
The Background
The case concerned Alison Parr, mother of Ruby Parr, a young woman with complex needs who had recently turned eighteen. Throughout Ruby’s life, Ms Parr had grown increasingly concerned about inconsistencies in her daughter’s care and breakdowns in communication between professionals and the family. A series of emergencies had left her without a clear voice in the decisions shaping Ruby’s daily life. She applied to be appointed as Ruby’s personal welfare deputy.
The application was refused on the papers. On reconsideration under rule 13.4 of the Court of Protection Rules 2017, it came before Mr Justice Poole.
What the Court Decided
Mr Justice Poole granted the application and used the judgment to address the wider question of when welfare deputies should be appointed. He held that the Code of Practice wording, which suggests that welfare deputies will “only be required in the most difficult cases,” should not be treated as the starting point and should be revised. The Code, he reminded the parties, is an interpretative aid to the statute, not the statute itself. The proper test is the one set out in section 16 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, read alongside the best interests framework in section 4.
In practical terms, there is no presumption against appointment. Each case turns on whether a welfare deputy order is necessary and in the person’s best interests, weighed against the principle that decisions should be taken in the least restrictive way possible under section 5.
Why This Matters for Families
The decision will not transform every case. The bar for a welfare deputyship remains meaningful, and many situations are better served by informal, collaborative decision-making between families, clinicians, and local authority teams. But Parr removes a barrier that has discouraged families from even asking the question. If you have spent years coordinating an adult relative’s care with social workers, GPs, hospital discharge teams, ICB commissioners, or residential providers, and you have felt sidelined from decisions that shape their daily existence, this judgment matters. A personal welfare deputy can be authorised to make decisions about residence, care arrangements, contact with family and friends, access to community life, and (in defined circumstances) medical treatment. The scope is tailored carefully by the Court.
Where Emergency Applications Fit In
Welfare deputyship addresses long-term decision-making. Many families, however, come to the Court of Protection because something has happened: a hospital now wants to discharge a loved one to a placement the family disputes, a serious medical decision requires urgent authority, or a safeguarding concern needs immediate intervention. In those circumstances,emergency Court of Protection applications provide a route to swift judicial decision-making, including out-of-hours hearings where the situation cannot wait. An urgent interim order can also be made before a substantive application is decided, giving families and professionals a workable bridge while longer-term arrangements are put in place.
The Funding Question
A persistent myth is that work under the Court of Protection is unaffordable for ordinary families. In health and welfare matters,legal aid for the Court of Protection is more available than people realise. The person at the centre of the case (“P”) is entitled to non-means-tested legal aid in section 21A proceedings relating to deprivation of liberty. In other welfare proceedings, family members may qualify under the standard means-and-merits assessment. A specialist solicitor can establish eligibility quickly and run the Legal Aid Agency application alongside the Court of Protection paperwork, so families are not left navigating two systems alone.
A Closing Thought
Parr is not a green light for every family to seek welfare deputyship. It is, however, a signal that the Court is willing to look afresh at the appropriate role of welfare deputies in a system where families often carry the heaviest practical burden of care. For practitioners advising those families, and for families weighing up whether to apply, the judgment is essential reading.
