The male partner has a diagnosed personality disorder characterized by anti-social behavior, and he has resorted to alcohol misuse. The authority does not allow him to live with his partner or have long-term contact with her because he has refused medical assistance and leads a nomadic, unstable life. This unstable life was very detrimental to the woman because it disengaged her from psychiatric services leading to the deterioration of her mental health. In addition, he subjected her to physical abuse and used her benefit money for alcohol abuse.On the plus side, his continued contact with her has a positive effect on the woman since she benefits psychologically from the relationship. For this reason, the local authority allows them to have supervised contact for two hours every month, although her psychiatrists believe that more contact will have a greater benefit to her. The authority is reluctant to allow increased contact to protect the woman from the physical harm he inflicts on her. The local authority referred the matter to the Court of Protection, which pointed out that the woman’s happiness is just as essential as her physical safety. In the Court’s view, the authority’s plan results in excessive interference with her personal life, and she should be allowed more contact, which is unsupervised with her partner, along with additional assistance from the authority if necessary.The first law that the authority has to consider in making the decision on whether to allow the woman and her partner more contact is the English Bill of Rights (1689). Although the Bill of rights falls in the category of common law, it is key to the protection of the rights of all cadres of individuals in society. The notion of citizenship in democratic countries recognizes that the state bears the responsibility of ensuring that its citizens enjoy certain fundamental and alienable rights. One of these is the right to respect for private life (Lester, 1990).