Peter, born prematurely and given for adoption at birth, experienced early instability and abuse in an institution before returning to a caring foster home. He attended a special school and later lived in a group home run by a disability organisation. Active, social, and skilled with computers, he works in the mornings, takes part in pottery and theatre workshops, and is a member of a Self-Advocates Group. Peter’s case illustrates the complexities involved in achieving legal capacity reform. On one side, this case is an example of good practice in implementing Article 12 of the CRPD, as the court heard his will and preferences and preserved his right to vote. On the other side, the decision is also fraught with contradictions: by nominating the group home director as the financial manager of Peter’s estate, the court created a potential conflict of interest. As for Peter, he values his independence and dreams of living on his own.