Paisley sheriffs finds none of elderly woman’s children suitable to be her welfare guardian after dementia diagnosis

About this case:

• Citation:
  [2024] SC PAI 49
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  Sheriff Court
• Judge:
  Sheriff Brian A Mohan

The applicant, referred to by the pseudonym “Alex Grady” applied for guardianship of his mother “Agnes Grady”, under the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000, with his application opposed by his sisters, referred to as “Ruth Grady” and “Wendy Barrett”. The CSWO, who did not respond to the application, had previously been appointed interim guardian to allow Mrs Grady’s discharge from hospital. A fourth sibling, “Donald Grady” was supportive of his sisters’ application.

The application was considered by Sheriff Brian Mohan, with Taylor, solicitor, appearing for the applicant and McNamara, solicitor, for the respondents.

Unrealistic views

The applicant, aged 57, resided at an address in Barrhead also occupied by his mother in joint ownership with her. He was formerly employed as a cruise ship musician, but since the Covid-19 pandemic had been employed in different jobs on the mainland. Prior to the pandemic the other children, who all lived nearby, would assist their mother while the applicant was at sea.

Relations between the siblings became strained, which led to the applicant changing the locks on the property to limit their access. A referral to the local authority’s Adult Support and Protection team was made in 2022 because he did not allow carers to enter the home to support his mother. After Agnes suffered a fall in May 2023, she was admitted to hospital, where she was diagnosed with dementia. Her discharge from hospital was delayed because her children could not agree on suitable arrangements for her care.

In his evidence, the applicant stated that he believed his mother’s health was suffering because of frequent visits by his siblings, and that she was giving away money to them too freely without realising how much she was losing. His position was that he had the trust of his mother and paid the mortgage on their house, while his siblings had unrealistic views about moving their mother out of a care home to live with one of them. Further, the strong views expressed by the first respondent, who was in denial about the extent of her mother’s needs, would be harmful in the event of her appointment.

The respondents submitted that they had a good knowledge and understanding of their mother’s needs and could work together. The applicant had demonstrated controlling behaviour towards their mother and left to his own devices would be unlikely to engage with social work or communicate with other family members.

Deep-rooted disharmony

In his decision, Sheriff Mohan said of the family dynamic: “There is a longstanding and deep-rooted level of disharmony within the family. The Adult appears to have attempted to appease her children and may have said different things to each of them prior to her diagnosis. Each party has clung to the view that their approach reflects their mother’s views and is in her best interests. Despite these stark observations and disagreements being laid bare, and despite all parties acknowledging that this was unhelpful to the Adult (particularly since she was aware of the conflict) none of this prompted any change in attitude, or resolution of the dispute.”

Assessing the applicant’s case for welfare guardianship, he said: “My conclusion is that it is likely the applicant may move away for work, thereby leaving a very awkward situation for welfare decision-making if he is to be abroad for much of the time. I have concluded also that communication with his siblings would not likely improve if he were appointed as welfare guardian, and he may be prone to shutting down any contact at all with his sisters and brother. The second respondent has a role as the nearest relative, and I am not persuaded that the applicant would properly respect or recognise that.”

Turning to the respondents’ case, the sheriff continued: “Notwithstanding the second respondent’s concession that a care home setting may be appropriate my assessment is that - because of the dominance of the first respondent’s strong views - the respondents may seek to move her to unsuitable accommodation which does not meet her current needs. In addition, if the respondents were to be appointed, I consider it likely that communication with the applicant would be limited or non-existent. I have therefore decided that neither the applicant nor the respondents should be appointed as welfare guardians.”

Sheriff Mohan concluded on financial guardianship: “[The applicant] took responsible control of the Adult’s finances when he came home during the Covid-19 pandemic. Although his sisters complained about this, he did give his mother money to use and appears to have been motivated by a desire to stop her wasting or giving away cash without really knowing where it had gone. There was no allegation and I was given no example of any misuse of funds by him.”

The sheriff therefore appointed the applicant as the adult’s financial guardian for a period of two years, but refused all parties’ craves in respect of welfare guardianship and appointed the Chief Social Work Officer of East Renfrewshire Council as welfare guardian.