Wardship system deprives adults of personal rights

One of the main provisions for dealing with the affairs of a person with limited decision-making ability is to make the person…

One of the main provisions for dealing with the affairs of a person with limited decision-making ability is to make the person a ward of court.

The wards of court system is under the responsibility of the president of the High Court, and administered by the Wards of Court Office.

The wards of court procedure is usually applied where a person loses decision-making capacity through illness or injury, and has a certain amount of money or property to be used for their maintenance.

An adult who suffers serious brain injury in a traffic accident and receives a substantial insurance settlement is likely to be made a ward of court.

READ MORE

If a person who suffers from a mental illness inherits a large amount of money or property, the person's family may apply to have them made a ward of court in order to ensure the person is not exploited, or does not make what the family considers to be foolish decisions concerning the property.

Being made a ward of court effectively deprives the adult of many personal rights, including the right to marry, the right to travel without the consent of the court, as well as to make any financial decisions.

According to the commission, "there are aspects of wardship procedure which may not reflect the emphasis on adequate procedural safeguards designed to protect human rights" under the European Convention on Human Rights.

The very fact of possessing resources in terms of money or property makes a person with mental illness or other mental incapacity vulnerable to being made a ward of court when a similar person without resources would not be.

The Law Reform Commission recommended in an earlier consultation paper on law and the elderly that the wardship system be replaced by an assisted decision-making system for vulnerable adults.

This could include a personal guardian who would make decisions on their behalf.

Here it recommends that any capacity legislation should conform to procedural fairness, that the person be represented and assisted to make their own views known, and that the decision on capacity be subject to periodic review.