Concerns around the future management of more than €1.7 billion in funds connected to wards of court may be contributing to a slow collective exit from wardship, a new study has suggested.
Before 2023, a person deemed by court to lack capacity to look after their own affairs was made a ward of court.
Last November, just 250 wards were discharged, while 1,602 adults (74 per cent) remained in wardship. These figures were noted in a study by the National Disability Authority (NDA), an independent statutory agency providing advice to Government on disability policy. About 1,500 adults were still in wardship at the end of January.
Numbers exiting wardship are not where they should be, in accordance with the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) (Amendment) Act 2022, which commenced in April 2023. The Act required all adult wards of court to be discharged from wardship over three years up to April, 2026.
READ MORE
Amending legislation is expected to be introduced shortly by the Department of Children, Disability and Equality. This will allow the High Court to extend, on a case-by-case basis, the deadline for exiting wardship by a maximum of 18 months.
The 2022 Act provided for abolition of the wardship system and its replacement by a new rights-based Decision Support Service. The new service is geared toward supporting adults with capacity issues in making decisions about their health and finances.
NDA director Aideen Hartney, speaking ahead of the study being published on Wednesday, noted the “significant efforts” of numerous public bodies and stakeholders in promoting engagement with the process for discharge. Sustained collaboration and momentum will be “essential” in meeting the revised timeframe, she said.
The journey away from wardship is necessary for Ireland to achieve compliance with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Hartney said.
Participants in the study, who were discharged from wardship without formal supports, were “enthusiastic about their new power to make decisions for themselves”.
However, this journey “is one of trepidation for some families, who are concerned about assuming additional responsibilities and moving away from a system which they have relied on for many years”.
The NDA research examining real-life experiences of those leaving the wardship system would, she hoped, “help chart the path forward”.
As part of the discharge process, the courts decide what, if any, decision-making supports individuals require when leaving wardship.
Two significant barriers to engagement with the discharge process emerged from the NDA study. The first related to concerns around management of the former ward’s funds after discharge. Some families, as committees of the ward, were “terrified” of moving from the safety of court management of sometimes substantial funds to finding another means of managing them individually, the study found.
The second barrier was reluctance to embark on “a new, unfamiliar system”. Some expressed discontent the same supports would not be available, either for wards or their committees, after discharge.
Despite substantial information provided by several public bodies, some wards and their committees either overlooked or chose not to engage with the information provided, the study said.
Of 27 wards who participated in the study, only five had fully completed the discharge process. While discharge brought a “sense of empowerment”, there was also fear and anxiety stemming from the responsibility of having to make decisions, the study said.
Of the 250 people discharged up to last November, a decision-making representative (DMR) was appointed to 78 per cent. A DMR makes decisions on the individual’s behalf, based on their will and preferences rather than best interests.
Thirteen per cent of those who left wardship were discharged with no support arrangements having been deemed to possess decision-making capacity. Nine per cent were discharged with support of a co-decision maker.
The NDA researchers, who observed more than 60 court discharge hearings, noted about 40 per cent of wards discharging did not attend the hearings. They said judges gave “great weight” to the will and preferences of the person exiting wardship.
