The good, the bad, and the 'vulnerable older adult'

Pritchard-Jones

Abstract

Recent declarations by the Court of Appeal indicate that the inherent jurisdiction has survived the implementation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 for adults considered ‘vulnerable’ and whose decision-making is threatened by reasons other than mental impairment – such occasions may include instances of elder abuse. In this paper I argue, however, that the post-Mental Capacity Act courts have adopted a confused and outmoded concept of the vulnerable older adult, in particular where decision-making is threatened by abusive interpersonal relationships experienced by an older individual. This has particular implications in terms of the types of remedies imposed by the courts on older adults in such circumstances. In this article I suggest that by being more cognisant of recent more nuanced understandings of vulnerability, the courts may be better suited to identifying, and responding to perceived sources of vulnerability in a way that is more empowering for the older adult.

Citation

Pritchard-Jones. (2016). The good, the bad, and the 'vulnerable older adult'. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 51-72. https://doi.org/10.1080/09649069.2016.1145838

• Acceptance Date: Jun 27, 2015
• Publication Date: Feb 24, 2016
• Journal: Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law
• Print ISSN: 0964-9069
• Publisher: Taylor and Francis
• Pages: 51-72
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09649069.2016.1145838
• Keywords: Capacity, decision-making, elder abuse, inherent jurisdiction, older adults, vulnerability
• Publisher URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09649069.2016.1145838