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

Pritchard-Jones

doi:10.1080/09649069.2016.1145838

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

Pritchard-Jones

Authors

Laura Pritchard-Jones l.g.pritchard-jones@keele.ac.uk

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.

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