Mental Capacity Act 05; Best Interests principle.

For issues specific to autism / Asperger Syndrome.
Has anyone else had experiences with the Best Interests principle within the meaning of the Mental Capacity act (MCA), in their dealings with social services departments? It is known that the Court of Protection prefers to rely on the B.I. principle, rather than issuing Deputyships; but to me this is like relying on a principle that reminds me of knitting fog.

The underlying ethos of the MCA is that each decision to be made about someone's daily welfare, needs to be considered on the basis as to whether that person has the capacity to make that specific decision for themselves. Now that is alright for someone whose capacity may fluctuate on a daily - even minute by minute - basis; but the reality is that some people simply do NOT, nor have ever done so, have the capacity to make decisions far and above very simple ones. So when it comes to making challenging life decisions there exists such things as a Lasting Power of Attorney for others to be able to have input on a legal footing; but that relies on the individual being able to give permission in the first place as to whether or not they want a nominated person to act on their behalf.

This implies that the person who does not possess the capacity to give permission in the first instance is effectively left without legal protection; particularly when the reliance is on the B.I. principle.

But the B.I. principle is something that can be used by those in authority not for the best interests of an individual but for the best interests of the authority within which they work. Power becomes one-sided and can be manipulated for less than honest reasons; thus leaving an individual and their family in a more vulnerable situation than they may already be.

There seems to be an implicit presumption within the MCA that all families and carers are potential abusers, and that social services (and other dimensions of society that may be involved in a person's life) are saintly.

There also seems to be an element of discrimination.

If a person whose capacity may fluctuate is able to obtain some protection in law (via an LPA), why can't a person whose capacity is non-fluctuating - that is, whose disabilities are, and have been, inherent from birth?

O.K., I've ranted, and not sure if I've made my point, but I wonder what thoughts others might have on this issue? It does concern me that on one hand we have a piece of legislation that is supposed to protect the interests of our loved ones, but then effectively may acts against it.
What is the B1 principle?
What is the B1 principle?
B I = Best Interest
I was told I had to act in the best interest of my father when he was in care and I was the donee of the power of attorney.
I did ask a couple of things which may have looked out if order to an outsider.
The main one was if it was in order to get mobile broadband as he liked to watch me looking at the internet.
The advice was yes if I thought he would get benefit from it.
All I and the carers could say is it seemed to interest him for a long time so it was probably worth it from that point of view but if anybody had asked what he had seen a few minutes later I don't think they would have got a very good answer.

Another case I came across was a daughter who was a pensioner wanting to get a new car as she had been visiting her mother in care for over 5 years and her car was getting unreliable.
The mother was on NHS funding.
It was decided that it was in the best interest for a new car to be purchased for the daughter with the mother's money as the daughter would have had to make less visits had this not been allowed and the daughter was due to inherit her mother's money anyway. Again the purchase of a car may look to be out of order to an outsider.
At the end of the day I was advised it was me who knew Dad best and as long as I could give reasons for spending his money I would not get in to trouble.

Brian