A rule 1.2 representative is required when a Community Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) order is put in place. If the individual does not have an appropriate close friend or relative who is independent of their care and treatment to act as their rule 1.2 representative, then an independent advocate or paid representative may be required.
Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) is a vital safeguarding process designed to prevent unlawful detention and disproportionate restrictions placed on individuals. It also protects human rights and places the individual at the centre of their care, where no one size fits all.
Serious incidents such as those at Winterbourne View Hospital and Whorlton Hall are sadly not a thing of the past. Warnings have been shared from various sources regarding the lack of appropriate support for adults with learning disabilities, leaving many locked away in contravention of their Human Rights.
In simple terms a deprivation can be described as a restriction, while a deprivation of liberty is a restriction on everyday living. The Mental Capacity Act enacts vital safeguards and protections an individual who can not consent to their care and treatment is is deprived of said liberties. It protects the individual through upholding their rights, monitoring any form of restriction in place and striving to ensure these are proportionate, justifiable and the least restrictive option. In today’s blog, we consider what these restrictions may include, and the importance of keeping the individual’s voice at the heart of any Best Interest decision.
There have been a number of high-profile Court of Protection (CoP) cases this year on the subject of DoLS placement and provisions. These cases each raise questions around the least restrictive option for the individual, what classes as ‘best interest’, and what do we mean by proportionate, reasonable and justifiable care.
There are often many complex interactions between legislation and case law – especially in the field of mental capacity and the Mental Capacity Act (2005) specifically. For this reason it is vital for professionals working in this area to ensure they are familiar with updates in case law to ensure those within the system are protected and best practice is upheld.
A Relevant Person’s Representative (RPR) is an advocate assigned to a person who is under the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). They are assigned by the Supervisory Authority to ensure the individual’s voice is upheld and supported while deprivations are in place. This includes the responsibility to raise a review and then a challenge if the relevant person is objecting to their care, treatment and/or placement.
In this week’s blog we gather together some of the free resources we have been sharing on Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and the forthcoming Liberty Protection Safeguards (LPS).
An RPR is a vital role under the Mental Capacity Act (2005), supporting an individual’s inclusion and rights around their Deprivation of Liberties (DoLS). This role is often filled by an unpaid family-member, friend or partner. However, if a family-member, friend, or partner cannot be identified, the supervisory body is required to refer for independent advocacy to complete this role as a paid (professional) RPR.
When does care become a deprivation for a young person under 18 years of age? When is care ‘necessary’ and how do we define what counts as ‘necessary’? Are a young person’s right so different from that of an adult? These are all questions that some of us wrestle with on an almost daily basis – and yet at the same time, it is evident that in some cases, these questions are not given the attention that they deserve.