Two warring sisters were yesterday stripped of the right to control their aged mother ’ s fortune because of the intensity of the hatred between them . The hostility between the women – one a 61-year-old retired GP and the other a 58-year-old radiographer – meant they would never be able to make rational decisions about how to deal with the 97-year-old widow ’ s property , a judge said . Senior Judge Denzil Lush said the elder sister could be jailed for attempting to alter a legal document , so she could gain greater control over her mother ’ s money . The mother , who has dementia , lives in a care home in Stoke Mandeville , Buckinghamshire . She owns a £600,000 house , has savings and shares worth £100,000 , and has an income of £1,200 a month . The Court of Protection case was brought by the Office of the Public Guardian ( pictured ) - the regulator of agreements for people without capacity . The judge said both sisters were unsuitable to control her affairs ‘ because of the intense acrimony between them ’ . Instead he appointed a court deputy to carry out this role . The ruling was made in the secretive Court of Protection in which hearings are routinely closed to the public . The judge ordered that none of the family be named . Senior Judge Lush said the ‘ daughters don ’ t see eye to eye . In fact , they detest each other. ’ According to the GP , the judge said , ‘ the two of them have been in the same room together on five occasions during the last five years , and on each occasion her sister has refused point blank either to speak to her or even acknowledge her presence . The only communication between them is by email , and this is usually rancorous in tone. ’ The disastrous relationship between the two sisters and their failure to handle their mother ’ s affairs as she slipped into dementia were revealed in a ruling by the secretive Court of Protection . The sisters agreed with their mother in 2007 that they should draw up an agreement to control her money and property if she became unable to do so herself . The mother , a widow since 1984 , owns a house in Marlow worth between £550,000 and £600,000 , savings and shares worth about £100,000 , and has an income of around £1,200 a month . Since suffering from dementia she has lived in a care home in Stoke Mandeville that costs £940 a week . However , the sisters have rowed over their mother ’ s care . The dispute has involved the younger sister , the radiographer , objecting to her elder sibling ’ s choice of care home - which is a two-hour journey away from her own house . It has also involved an accusation from the GP that her younger sibling only visits their mother once a week or once a fortnight . The document drawn up by the sisters in 2007 to control their mother ’ s affairs - an Enduring Power of Attorney - was put into effect in 2013 . Since suffering from dementia the mother has lived in a care home in Stoke Mandeville ( pictured ) costing £940 a week . But Senior Judge Lush said that at some stage the elder sister had attempted to alter the document . She attempted to change the attorneys ’ appointment from ‘ joint ’ to ‘ joint and several ’ . It meant that the doctor could take decisions on her own about the money , without reference to her sister . The judge added that when she registered the new document the GP ‘ knew that this statement was false. ’ The Court of Protection case was brought by the Office of the Public Guardian - the regulator of agreements for people without capacity . The OPG told the court that there were no witnesses to the alteration of the document . Judge Lush said there were criminal penalties for dishonestly tampering with an Enduring Power of Attorney . Laura Knight of the OPG told the court that ‘ it is more difficult to believe that a professional person with the responsibilities of the GP would misunderstand the difference in appointment types ’ . Miss Knight added that the GP said that her late aunt had agreed that the document should be changed , but ‘ while this seems plausible , it is alarming to see an attempt by reasonably educated people at amending an important legal document without any witnessing being attempted or legal advice being taken. ’ Judge Lush said there were criminal penalties for dishonestly tampering with an Enduring Power of Attorney . He said the punishments could run up to two years in jail but any charges were a matter for the Crown Prosecution Service . He added that he thought prosecution would not be in the interests of the mother , who would be caused ‘ significant distress ’ . The judge said of the doctor : ‘ Notwithstanding the natural love and affection between them and the undoubted support she has provided to her mother in recent years , I find her unsuitable to be the donor ’ s attorney . ’
Sisters , one 61 and the other 58 , unable to agree because of mutual hatred . Judge Denzil Lush said one could be jailed for trying to alter a document . Lost control of a £600,000 house and savings and shares worth £100,000 .