DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF SOCIAL WELFARE v YDJ

Facts

The Ministry of Social and Family Development's Protective Services (PSV), on behalf of the Director-General of Social Welfare, applied in VAM No. 2 of 2026 under the Vulnerable Adults Act 2018 to place YDJ, a 63-year-old single man, in a nursing home for two years. He is wheelchair-bound, has many medical conditions including stroke, diabetes and serious loss of vision, and has cognitive impairment with agitation, but was assessed to have mental capacity to decide on the application. He objected and wanted to return to the one-room rental flat he shared with his younger brother.

In April 2025 volunteers found the flat in an unsanitary state with faeces, spoiled food and maggot infestation; media reported it had returned to that state two weeks after a clean-up. PSV intervened in May 2025, and he was taken to hospital. Since around 2015 a series of care providers had ended their services after conflicts with him. Under an earlier six-month order he consented to, he moved to a home for the elderly in August 2025, where he showed challenging behaviour and was hospitalised more than once. His brother declined to care for him.

Issues

1. Whether YDJ was a vulnerable adult unable to protect himself from self-neglect.
2. Whether he had experienced or was at risk of self-neglect.
3. Whether committing him to a nursing home against his wishes was necessary for his protection and in his best interests, given his mental capacity.

Holding

The court allowed the application and granted the orders sought with conditions: placement at the home or another suitable facility, and supervision by a Protector, both for two years until 4 May 2028. It ordered continued counselling, directed PSV to explore future eligibility for assisted living, set conditions on his conduct and care, and fixed a case review in a year's time.

Reasoning

The court held that where a person has capacity, nursing home placement is a last resort, used only when family care, home services or assisted living have failed or would likely fail, with his welfare and best interests paramount. It set out factors including functional decline, health needs, the sustainability of home services, available caregivers, finances and the emotional cost of losing one's home.

Medical evidence showed he could not toilet, transfer or shower without help, and had poorly controlled diabetes likely from poor medication compliance. He did not dispute his infirmities, so he was a vulnerable adult. The state of the flat and his untreated conditions showed self-neglect, with a risk of recurrence if he went home.

There was no alternative: he could not afford a helper and expecting social services to fund one was not feasible, he was too young for assisted living, his brother would not help and the court could not compel him, and he had driven away many service providers. His emotional regulation had improved in the home. The advisers supported placement but were concerned for his wellbeing, which the conditions addressed.

From the judgment