Does The Mental Capacity Act Adequately Address Predatory Relationships?

Predatory relationships are becoming an increasingly significant concern in Court of Protection practice. Families, carers, and professionals are encountering growing numbers of cases involving:

• coercive relationships 
• financial exploitation 
• predatory marriages 
• emotional dependency 
• undue influence 
• safeguarding concerns involving vulnerable adults 

Yet despite the rise in these cases, many families discover that the legal framework does not always provide straightforward protection.

One of the core difficulties is that the Mental Capacity Act 2005 is designed primarily to protect individuals who lack mental capacity. Where a vulnerable adult retains capacity, even if they are at risk of exploitation or manipulation, the legal options available can be far more limited.

In a discussion between Court of Protection specialists Holly Miéville-Hawkins and Sophia Withers, the pair explored whether the Mental Capacity Act and existing Court of Protection framework adequately deal with predatory relationships, and why many lawyers believe reform is increasingly necessary.

The limits of the Mental Capacity Act

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 gives the Court of Protection significant powers to intervene where a person lacks capacity to make specific decisions.

This can include, but not limited to, decisions about:

• finances 
• property 
• care arrangements 
• contact with others 
• marriage 
• sexual relationships 

Where incapacity is established, the court can authorise protective measures designed to safeguard the vulnerable person.

However, the key limitation is this:

• The Court of Protection’s powers generally depend on a finding that the person lacks capacity.

This creates a difficult legal gap.

Many individuals involved in potentially predatory relationships may still technically satisfy the legal test for capacity, even where:

• they are highly vulnerable 
• emotionally dependent 
• subject to coercive control 
• financially exploited 
• socially isolated 

In those situations, the court’s powers become far more restricted.

For families navigating these concerns, understanding the wider framework of mental capacity and Court of Protection law is often essential.

Why predatory relationship cases are increasing

Court of Protection practitioners are reporting a noticeable rise in inquiries involving alleged predatory relationships.

These cases often involve:

• vulnerable older adults 
• cognitive decline 
• social isolation 
• younger partners 
• rapid relationship progression 
• financial dependency 
• changes to wills or assets 
• pressure to marry 

Historically, public attention around predatory relationships often focused on wealthy older men and younger women.

However, as discussed in the interview, modern case law increasingly involves:

• older women 
• younger male partners 
• complex emotional dependency dynamics 

Cases such as Re BU [2021] EWCOP 54 have highlighted the growing complexity of these disputes and the challenges families face when trying to intervene.

What happens when a vulnerable person still has capacity?

This is where many families encounter frustration with the legal system.

If a local authority or court concludes that the person has capacity, the Court of Protection may have very limited powers to intervene, even where safeguarding concerns remain serious.

In practice, this can mean:

The Mental Capacity Act deliberately protects personal autonomy, including the right to make decisions others may regard as unwise.

This principle is fundamental to the legislation but can create painful situations where families believe exploitation is occurring but cannot secure protective intervention.

The role of the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction

Where the Mental Capacity Act cannot provide a solution, families may sometimes turn to the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction.

This is an important but often misunderstood legal mechanism.

The inherent jurisdiction may be used where:

• a vulnerable adult has capacity 
• coercion or undue influence is alleged 
• there are concerns about exploitation 
• safeguarding intervention is needed 
• the Mental Capacity Act does not apply 

Unlike the Court of Protection, the inherent jurisdiction focuses less on incapacity itself and more on whether a vulnerable adult’s ability to make free decisions has been compromised.

However, as Sophia Withers noted, this route presents major practical difficulties.

Why the current system can be difficult for families

High legal costs

Proceedings under the inherent jurisdiction are often expensive and complex.

Limited access to legal aid

Unlike many Court of Protection cases, legal aid may not be available to family members seeking intervention.

Control of finances

In some cases, the allegedly exploitative individual may already control the vulnerable person’s finances, making it difficult to fund legal proceedings.

Evidential challenges

Families may strongly suspect coercion or exploitation but struggle to gather the level of evidence required by the court.

Emotional strain

These disputes often involve highly personal allegations concerning relationships, sexuality, and family conflict.

What most people do not realise about predatory relationship cases

Many people assume that the courts can automatically prevent exploitative relationships involving vulnerable adults.

In reality, the legal threshold for intervention is often much higher than families expect.

The law must carefully balance:

• personal autonomy 
• human rights 
• freedom of association 
• protection from exploitation 
• safeguarding obligations 

This balancing exercise is particularly difficult where:

• the vulnerable person insists the relationship is genuine 
• there is conflicting evidence 
• coercive control is subtle rather than overt 
• family members disagree about the situation 

The courts are cautious about overriding personal relationships without clear evidence because doing so risks becoming overly paternalistic.

How coercive control complicates these cases

Predatory relationships frequently involve elements of:

• coercive control 
• emotional dependency 
• manipulation 
• social isolation 
• financial pressure 

As discussed in previous Court of Protection cases, coercive control may sometimes affect:

• executive functioning 
• decision-making ability 
• the ability to weigh information 
• autonomy in practice 

However, proving this overlap can be legally and evidentially difficult.

Specialist advice relating to financial abuse and predatory marriages is increasingly important in these cases, particularly where concerns involve marriage, inheritance, gifts, or asset transfers.

Areas where reform may be needed

The interview reflected a growing view among practitioners that the current legal framework may not adequately protect vulnerable adults in all predatory relationship cases.

Areas often identified for reform include:

• stronger protections against predatory marriage 
• improved access to legal aid 
• clearer safeguards for vulnerable adults with capacity 
• better recognition of coercive control dynamics 
• more effective financial protection mechanisms 
• greater support for families raising safeguarding concerns 

The Law Commission has already considered reforms relating to marriage law and wills, reflecting wider concerns about exploitation and undue influence involving vulnerable adults.

Common warning signs of predatory relationships

Families often report:

• sudden relationship changes 
• rapid engagement or marriage discussions 
• isolation from relatives or friends 
• unusual financial transactions 
• dependency on a much younger partner 
• pressure to change wills or property ownership 
• reluctance to discuss the relationship openly 
• hostility towards concerned family members 

These signs do not automatically establish exploitation, but they may justify safeguarding referrals or legal advice.

When professional advice is essential

Specialist legal advice is often necessary where:

• there are concerns about predatory marriage 
• a vulnerable adult may be financially exploited 
• coercive control is suspected 
• family members seek urgent intervention 
• there are disputes about capacity assessments 
• safeguarding concerns overlap with inheritance or property issues 

These cases frequently involve overlapping issues concerning:

• mental capacity 
• family law 
• inheritance disputes 
• financial abuse 
• safeguarding 
• human rights 

In complex disputes, specialist litigation support and expert witness services may assist with capacity evidence, safeguarding analysis, and court proceedings.

FAQ

Can the Court of Protection stop a predatory relationship?

Only if the person lacks capacity and the court has jurisdiction to intervene.

What happens if the vulnerable person still has capacity?

The Court of Protection’s powers may be limited, although safeguarding measures or High Court proceedings may still be possible.

What is the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court?

It is a protective jurisdiction used in some cases involving vulnerable adults who technically retain capacity but may be subject to coercion or exploitation.

Are predatory relationship cases increasing?

Many Court of Protection practitioners report a significant rise in these cases, particularly involving older adults and financial exploitation.

Can legal aid help families bring these cases?

Legal aid availability is often limited, particularly for family members pursuing inherent jurisdiction proceedings.

Conclusion

Predatory relationships present one of the most difficult gaps within the current mental capacity framework.

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 provides important protections where incapacity is established. However, where vulnerable adults technically retain capacity, families and professionals can find themselves navigating a far more uncertain legal landscape.

As concerns around coercive control, financial exploitation, and predatory marriage continue to grow, pressure for reform is likely to increase. For now, these cases remain highly fact-sensitive, emotionally challenging, and legally complex, requiring careful balancing between autonomy and protection.