Funds and unfamiliarity are key wardship worries

Concerns about the management of funds, and worries about an unfamiliar system, have emerged as key barriers to engagement with the wardship-discharge process.

Research from the National Disability Authority (NDA) examined the process and experience of ending the system of wardship in Ireland and the start of the supported decision-making system under the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act 2015.

It concluded that the wardship-discharge process had proved to be “resource-intensive and lengthy”, with less appetite and uptake than was envisaged.

The research covered the perspectives of those who were made wards of court, committees, and professionals involved in the transition from wardship to the new system.

Committees are those appointed by a court to manage the affairs of a ward of court.

‘Huge volume’ of cases

The analysis found that, of the 2,173 people in wardship in April 2023, there were still 1,602 adults in wardship (almost 74%) at the end of November 2025.

It warned that “a huge volume” of wardship-discharge cases were expected before the High Court in the next few months.

Of those who had been discharged, 78% had been appointed a decision-making representative, while 13%  were discharged with no support arrangements, as the court determined that the individual had decision-making capacity.

Only 9% of those who left wardship were discharged with the support of a co-decision-maker who jointly makes decisions with the former ward of court.

Security

The NDA found two significant barriers to engagement with the discharge process, with the first linked to concerns about management of the former ward’s funds following discharge.

Some families, acting as committees , were “terrified” of moving from what they saw as the “safety of the court” to managing substantial financial funds following discharge.

“The security that wardship provided, both in terms of financial management and the potential for interventions by the High Court, were highly valued by committees,” the NDA found.

The second main barrier was a reluctance to embark on a new, unfamiliar system.

According to the NDA, some people expressed discontent that the same supports would not be available after discharge for both people in wardship and their committees.

Information vacuum

The research found that many wards of court and committees felt that there was an information vacuum on the process of ending wardship, despite substantial information provision by several public bodies.

The study found that some wards of court and their committees overlooked or chose not to engage with the information provided.

Those discharged spoke of “freedom” and how they were in a position to make their own decisions in their day to day lives and live more independently, though the NDA stressed that it was possible to obtain only “limited insights” for the small number of discharged people interviewed.

The NDA said that, while the discharge brought a sense of empowerment, there was also fear and anxiety stemming from the responsibility of having to make decisions.

Judiciary’s ‘significant efforts’

As part of the research, the NDA analysed anonymised data provided by the Office of Wards of Court, after which it conducted interviews with persons in or recently discharged from wardship and with their committees.

The NDA also interviewed key stakeholders involved in the transition from wardship, while it also observed court-discharge hearings.

“These observations highlighted significant efforts by the judiciary to make the court process more informal and accessible to individuals that had been made wards of court,” the authority stated.

“The court also considered and gave great weight to the will and preferences of the person exiting wardship,” it added.

Inherent jurisdiction

The report also highlighted an increase in applications under the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction, some of which relate to new detention orders for those in wardship.

It added that this was placing a “heavy burden” on Courts Service resources.

“A statutory framework for detaining persons who have a ‘mental disorder’ but lack decision-making capacity to consent to arrangements for their care and treatment is urgently needed to address this issue,” the NDA stated.

It called on the Government to progress the Protection of Liberty Safeguards Bill as a priority, describing it as “a key measure” to address concerns about the increased reliance on inherent jurisdiction.

The Law Society and others had warned that this was a significant gap in the 2015 legislation.

The research was published after the Government announced plans earlier this week to enable the courts to extend the original deadline of 26 April this year for all individuals in wardship to be discharged.