In a recent assessment, the issue of grooming within a relationship became central to the decision-making process for my client.
The case required careful consideration of how interpersonal influence was affecting the person’s ability to make autonomous decisions. A particularly valuable framework in guiding this assessment came from Ariyo et al. (2023), which examines how courts in England and Wales interpret interpersonal influence when assessing decision-making capacity under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA).
While capacity is legally framed as a cognitive test – focused on an individual’s ability to understand, retain, use or weigh information, and communicate decisions – the reality in practice is often more complex. Courts frequently encounter situations where relational pressures such as influence, coercion, dependency or grooming significantly affect decision-making.
In their analysis of 20 legal judgments (containing 54 references to interpersonal influence), Ariyo and colleagues developed a five-part typology describing how courts understand influence as impairing decision-making. Importantly, they explore how judges link (or fail to link) these relational dynamics to the statutory functional test under the MCA.
One aspect of the paper that was particularly relevant in this assessment was the emphasis placed on P denying facts about the influencer or the relationship.
In this case, P refused to believe established facts relating to convictions and patterns of behaviour in previous relationships. This denial was not simply a difference of opinion; it prevented P from meaningfully weighing risk in decisions about contact. If an individual is unable to acknowledge relevant information about potential harm, their ability to use or weigh that information in the decision-making process may be compromised.
This highlights an important tension within MCA assessments. Capacity is not assessed on whether a decision appears wise or unwise. However, where grooming or relational manipulation distorts a person’s ability to engage with relevant information, the assessor must carefully consider whether the statutory criteria are truly met.
Assessments in such contexts require a nuanced understanding of both cognitive functioning and relational dynamics. Influence does not automatically equate to incapacity, but nor can it be ignored when it directly affects the person’s ability to use or weigh information central to the decision.
As practitioners, we are often working at the intersection of autonomy and protection. Papers such as Ariyo et al. (2023) provide an invaluable framework for thinking rigorously about how interpersonal influence interacts with the functional test under the MCA – and for ensuring our assessments remain both legally grounded and clinically informed.
About the author
Dr Claire Bazen-Peters is a Clinical Psychologist and Neuropsychologist and Founding Director of Totus Neurorehabilitation. She specialises in complex neuropsychological assessment, capacity evaluations and rehabilitation following acquired brain injury.
View Claire’s full profile here: https://totusrehab.co.uk/team/dr-claire-bazen-peters-clinical-psychologist-neuropsychology/
Connect with Claire on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/claire-bazen-peters-44384979/
