Relational Autonomy and Social Work in Legal Capacity Cases: Insights from Czech Judicial Practice

This study analyzes how the Czech Supreme Court interprets legal criteria for restricting legal capacity and how these judicial standards shape expectations for social work within supported decision‑making frameworks.

A qualitative content analysis of 40 Supreme Court decisions (2014-2024) was conducted using a coding frame combining legal principles - subsidiarity, proportionality, individualization, and participation - with inductive categories emerging from judicial reasoning.

The Court repeatedly criticized lower courts for insufficient factual findings, limited participation of the persons concerned, and excessive reliance on psychiatric expertise. It emphasized the need for updated, contextual evidence on daily functioning and the exploration of less restrictive alternatives. These requirements closely correspond to emerging social‑work assessment tools designed to document support needs in decision‑making.

Social workers can provide courts with structured, contextualized evidence that complements medical opinions and supports CRPD‑aligned decisions. Strengthening interdisciplinary collaboration and routine use of evidence‑based assessment tools is essential for promoting autonomy.

When methodologically supported and institutionally recognized, social work can serve as a key partner toward safeguarding legal capacity by supplying courts with person‑centered evidence necessary for proportionate and rights‑based decisions.