I am tasked with identifying suitable alternative options for P within health and welfare proceedings. As part of this task, i am to ask the LPAs (x4) if they will agree to pay for those options, ie trial return home with POC, trial at alternative care home placement - with the suggestion that if they will not agree, those are not then viable options.
My concern is that the best interest analysis of those options would not have taken place before they were ruled out and that the cost and agreement of the LPAs would be effectively dictating what a viable option was?
My view is that the options should be identified, fully considered with a best interest analysis being undertaken and a final decision being made by the Judge, having regard to the LPA views but not putting them in a position where they are effectively the decision makers.
If the Judge then determines and makes an order directing a particular option (on the basis it is in P’s best interest) and the LPAs refuse to use P’s funds to pay then that would call into question whether they were acting in her best interest and appropriate to continue as an LPA - Have i misunderstood??
I think you’re right, that the best interests assessment should include any options that the person could fund, seeing as the LPA attorneys should also be taking a best interests approach – it’s different to the more usual scenarios where, for example, a local authority or doctor says “no” in advance (which are subject to different public law and ethical considerations). This reply is based on my idea of common sense rather than experience of the situation in practice.
thanks Jonathan