— The patient, FF, was detained under s3 MHA 1983 for treatment for anorexia. The trust decided to discharge her from detention, and to stop providing clinical artificial hydration and nutrition by force or the threat of force, and sought court orders declaring that this would be lawful. The court agreed that FF lacked capacity to make treatment decisions. It was in her best interests to receive treatment for anorexia, but providing this by force or the threat of force was futile (as treatment for her anorexia) and highly burdensome and so not in her best interests. A full merits review is required for MHA non-treatment decisions which could lead to death: the judge, having concluded it was not in her best interests and in the absence of any wider public issues, could see no reason not to declare that it would be lawful not to treat by force or threat of force under s63 MHA 1983. When a declaration about s63 is sought, a Part 8 claim form should be served so that the Civil Procedure Rules can be used, and the declaration should be under s19(2)(a) Senior Courts Act 1981 rather than the inherent jurisdiction or the MCA 2005. The "transparency" order, forbidding the naming of FF, her location, the identity of her father and other family members, and (while they continue to treat FF) the treating clinicians, would continue for six months after her death.
Full details available at: https://www.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/Leeds_and_York_Partnership_NHS_Foundation_Trust_v_FF_(2025)_EWCOP_26_(T3)?id=250426-2156