Judge condemns failure to let dog visit elderly owner

A woman, described as totally devoted to her dog Bobby, was denied the chance to see her pet at her care home by the man managing her financial affairs.

The woman who lacks the capacity to make decisions for herself moved out of her own home and into a care home, but failed to get access to her much-loved pet because it was considered ‘irresponsible’ to let the dog visit a care home for older people.

At the final hearing at the Court of Protection, relating to matters concerning the deprivation of liberty and care arrangements for the woman described in court as ‘Mrs P’, district judge Matharu ordered Alan Cryne of Temperley Taylor solicitors, be replaced as financial deputy for the woman’s property and affairs because Mr Cryne had failed to act in her best interests.

Her 'face lights up'

In his Judgement, the judge said: 'Assessments made clear that the only living being with whom she shares any love or devotion is her dog, Bobby.

'The court is told that her ‘face lights up’ when she sees other dogs. These are all matters which are affecting the quality of her life. They are again provided for and addressed in her most recent care plan. They are extremely important to and for her.'

The woman’s social worker in her witness statement said: “I would recommend that of single most importance in her life is her dog and having some form of contact with her dog in the future if possible.”

The court had requested the woman’s dog be brought to Mrs P and other financial needs be met by the deputy.

“Irresponsible to suggest that a dog visits a care home for elderly and frail people”

Despite these requests, the deputy’s practice informed the court in July that the woman’s dog had been rehomed.

The court received news of the dog’s status from the firm which wrote: 'In such a case we would say that possession of Bobby has passed to his new owner…in the absence of any factual information about Bobby, his owner or the home’s policy on animals, it would seem irresponsible in the extreme to suggest that a dog visits a care home for elderly and frail people'.

In his Judgement, the judge described the 13 July email to the court from the deputy’s practice as ‘brutal and insensitive’.

'Holding the purse strings’

Mr Cryne had been appointed as the woman’s deputy in March 2016. The woman’s care plans had raised the need for money for gluten-free food and clothes, which she could afford to purchase privately but the judge said these financial requests had been ignored.

The judge said Temperley Taylor solicitors 'hold the purse strings to enable the purchase of clothes that fit Mrs P to be bought.'

The woman, who had worked all of her life and had her own home, was believed to have pensions and investments in bonds. However, a letter was received from the deputy’s practice which the judge said referred to a nil balance on one account that nine months earlier had nearly £7000 in it.

His Judgement revealed the court was told Mrs P had no money, the bank account is empty, the credit card is in the red, the only asset is her house, and the pension couldn’t be traced.

Referring to Mrs P, the judge said: 'What is known is that her wishes and feelings before her second stroke were very clear. She enjoyed a good quality of life, she loved her dog, likes to be made to feel glamourous. Now she is wearing ill-fitting clothes, and financially unable to pay to have her feminine needs attended to, such as having her hair and nails done.'

In his Judgement, judge Matharu said: 'Based on what the court has seen and heard, the court is satisfied that they [deputy] are not acting in her best interests. It is entirely unclear on what basis they consider the steps they have taken to be in her interests. Their sole focus should and can only be Mrs P, yet they appear to be working against the Litigation Friend and not with them.'

Temperley Taylor's response

In a statement, Temperley Taylor said: “Temperley Taylor has extensive expertise of working with elderly and vulnerable clients.

“The firm believes that the observations made in the Judgment are not a true reflection of the work that was undertaken on behalf of Mrs P. Her affairs were handled professionally, her pet was well looked after and no moneys have been received by this firm. “We are deeply saddened by the adverse comments that have been made.”

Temperley Taylor is considering making an appeal.