Education, Health and Care Statements- Emperors clothes ?

EHCPSEN, special educational need statements have now been replaced by EHCs, Education Health and Care Plans..

This seemingly superficial mnemonic change hides a multitude of sins.

Funding for special needs day schools after 16 no longer exists.

EHCs are not subject to OFSTED or tribunal challenge and providers are untested, unregulated, and unassessed.

The Local Authority fund, whatever ‘provision’ they choose, and, they alone, decide its adequacy.

A clear conflict of interest, and, recipe for corruption, and, inadequate provision.

As Care is now part of special education needs statement social services are involved in a child’s education reinforcing the treatment of autistic/LD as automatically ‘children in need’ because of parental neglect/incapacity/abuse.

The LA can intervene, at any time, and remove your child by court order to care if under 16, if over to ‘independent’/community living.

So the draconian power of the state is by virtue of the Children and Families Act 2014, now incorporated into education, and, can be used to silence any criticism, or dissent.

At 16  special needs schools are  replaced by ad hoc unregulated ‘education’ packages, that teach only, ‘independent’ living skills which most already have ie eating properly, helping cook, getting drinks, sorting clothes, throwing out rubbish.

My daughter’s ‘education’ skills were inter alia table manners, carrying a bag, mixing a cake, getting her own coffee and juice, all things, she could already do, if she wanted to.

‘Independent’ living is heavily risk and health, and safety assessed to avoid legal claims and maximise profit.

And requires residents, to be supervised at all times,  so most of these skills will never be used or indeed needed except to make support cheaper and more profitable.

So at 16, all special needs teenagers are deprived of everything a school, and its community have to offer, and taught ‘skills’, they already have, until they are 25.

All deeply patronising, and discriminatory to those deemed to have ‘learning difficulties’.

And a good tick box, unaccountable source of income.

Norman Lamb’s consultation on the implementation of the strategy for adults with autism in England, published earlier this month promotes this system, by providing money, to train the trainers and create, and teach ‘employability’ skills.

An industry, has already been created on the basis of these ‘emperors clothes ’ and is set to increase.

It would appear from these initiatives;

Disability,  will create jobs, but not for the disabled.

Spends money, but not on schools.

Isabel, is now on her second ‘education’ package.

It is now 8 weeks, since our ‘education’ package meeting, I posted about in, ‘Where is the cavalry?

The owner of the provider company, asked to meet us again  the Monday after that meeting.

She asked,

‘What we thought of the meeting?’

I replied it served no purpose.

She made no comment.

She continued with questions about Issy’s care and communication, my advice, the same as in our 2 hour meeting in August, only this time she took notes.

It occurred to me, but apparently not to anyone else, that Issy’s care plan might be useful, so I provided it.

She had neither asked for it or been provided with it.

Three months ago, both the LA education manager, and this measured lady, confessed to knowing little about Isabel, and, it would appear, nothing had changed.

Why, still no sharing of children in need meeting minutes, care plans, education report, or liaison with Issy previous education package manager.

She left promising to send her ‘proposed plan’.

It arrived via email two days later.

It was less than one side of A4, and consisted of 3 stages, the first concluded,

‘ we are not able to make a reasonable long term plan, as we don’t yet have IB’s voice to influence and shape such a plan’.

The third concludes,

‘Our aim is to build sufficient trust and confidence to encourage IB to start getting out of the house and to start attending Yewtree House. At this stage will aim to make another, longer term plan which will be shaped by IB’s voice’.

This plan, gave no inkling, as to how, she proposed to do this, or even the hours, or tasks, the PAs, would undertake, nor in what way we, as promised, employed them, nor mention of the ‘pot of money’, the LA funding lady, had repeatedly told us, this lady, held on our behalf.

And it had taken 7 and a half months and 9 hours of meetings to get it.

And, it appeared, excepting, to allow Isabel’s voice the same as the previous ‘education’ package.

But, instead of an agency worker, and an assistant teacher, and the package’s office, we had 2 PAs, and, an empty Lodge.

And how,

‘is a longer term plan going to be shaped by ‘Isabel’s voice’?

And what was that plan?

LA funding, facilities and policy, appeared to allow, only one future plan, the suggestion of which, appeared to have forced Isabel into her bedroom for the past eight months.

Was Issy’s her voice, still not loud enough?

The lady, who owned the education package company, insisted on introducing her two PAs, necessitating, two more meetings in the kitchen.

Despite in  August, exclaiming,

‘I could get 2 PAs in tomorrow, but things had to be done properly, and it won’t be cheap’.

Our social worker had emailed, without being asked, that the PAs were not CQC approved, restraint trained, nor risk assessed , so could not be left alone with Issy, nor support me with Isabel’s personal care.

Why not ?

The measured lady, arrived in the kitchen, with the first PA, we were not informed, if she was, as stated in the plan.

’The person who would be stepping into the role of senior PA is highly skilled in intensive inter reaction’

The Measured Lady greeted us with the usual,

‘How are things?’

My husband shrugged his shoulders, with a

‘What can you say’.

She looked bemused, but, made no comment.

Our proposed, ‘Mary Poppins’, was slight, quiet, appearing in her mid twenties, and, wonderfully unobtrusive.

I told her she had a heavy burden resting on her shoulders.

But she remained silent.

She declined coffee, so I made some without asking, for her boss.

As no one spoke, or asked, I wittered on about Isabel… in bed, lack of appetite.

The slight ‘Mary Poppins’ to be, confessed she knew nothing about Issy.

There’s a surprise.

Their silence forced more wittering by me, lack of any medical care, 3 such Isabel’s dying needlessly a  week, but still no reaction.

The slight lady asked if she could go into Isabel’s bedroom, so I took her in, and, not wanting to interfere with her, hopefully, magical powers, I left.

She returned to the kitchen, several minutes later, without comment.

Surely a good sign ?

Later, she went in again, this time without asking, a really good sign.

I hoped.

Two days later, the second PA was in the kitchen.

Some bad news, from the measured lady.

Our proposed ‘Mary Poppins’, had, on her first visit to Issy’s bedroom, sat on her bed.

Aptly, singing along to Issy’s Mary Poppin’s DVD.

Issy had probably told her to go, as she  did sometimes but then had pulled her hair which Issy rarely did.

Maybe this incident never happened it was an excuse as this young lady did not want to be part of spy and remove?

The truth can never be known.

A new PA had to be found.

All our meetings, Issy’s background, which she was ignorant of.

And common sense, had not stopped her sitting on Issy’s bed on a first meeting, and staying.

Our remaining PA was to come on Mondays and Tuesdays, but, no specific times or hours, were mentioned.

I suggested later in the morning, so the remaining PA, a sophisticated, polished, extremely affable young lady, promised to see me at 11 am, the following Monday.

She arrived at 11.20, and Issy was up.

Having been up all night.

She stayed in the kitchen, I made her a coffee, and chatted.

Issy came in three times for juice, and the PA left.

On Tuesday, she arrived later, about 12, and stayed just over half an hour, Issy was not up.

She said, she’d come on Friday, with the beads, she threads, which Issy might want to join in with.

The measured lady, rang on Thursday, asking if we could meet the next week, to discuss how things were going.

I updated her, and, that her PA was coming tomorrow. She said good.

But the PA did not arrive on Friday, so I thought she must have meant Monday, but she didn’t arrive on Monday either, and there were no phone calls.

She eventually arrived at 3.30 on Tuesday, with no mention of Monday, or Friday, nor why she was so late.

Issy, was still in bed, so she sat on her bedroom floor for half an hour, Issy told her to go, and she left.

On Monday the PA arrived at 12.40 pm and stayed 40 minutes, chatted over a coffee, and stood in Issy’s bedroom, whilst I tried unsuccessfully, to get her up.

She asked, if it was OK to come again around 7.00 pm sometime, but not which day.

I said she could drop in, whenever, she wanted to.

But she didn’t drop in not even on her designated Tuesday.

On Wednesday, within hours of us, relaying this to the social services complaint investigator, in a meeting about our formal complaint in June, the LA education coordinator, emailed me.

He had spoken to the measured lady that Monday, and,

‘She tells me that there has been some progress and the support worker is starting to build a relationship with Isabel.

Our aim is to introduce staff from Lodge, and eventually use this, as a base for Isabel’s learning.

Please let me know if you think we are able to accelerate this process or have any suggestions on how we may be more effective’.

In reply, I emailed back the specific times and outcomes of the PAs visits.

He emailed back.

’Thank you for the update and I will discuss with (measured lady). What do you consider to be most appropriate times to be engaging with Isabel at present?’

Such, is special needs ‘education’.



Email sent to Norman Lamb Care Minster in February 2013, and his Reply

Dear Mr Lamb,

Forgive me for writing, as I am not one of your constituents, but approach in your care capacity, and do not know where else to turn, and am desperate.

My daughter is just 16 and autistic, and we love her very much. But she and us, have been continually let down by the system, and the autistic society, and treated very badly.

It is no wonder that so many parents of such children commit suicide, or abandon their children to the horrors of a care home- were they are kept in nappies, over medicated, and often eventually die, unchecked- no record of medication in these homes is kept .

The homes on average charge £200,000 per year, and are totally managerialised, but, the actual care is provided by very cheap, often agency care workers – hence Winterbourne.

We have been forced by care proceedings, which caused us terrible stress in 2007, when our daughter had problems in her former day school, which, we never got to the bottom of, but we think there had been restraint and abuse, as soon as this happens the school , social services GP police, and of cause the Autistic society, all closed ranks, and we were blamed hence the proceedings, this is an ever increasing common senario see, my article Disability Trap on googling my name.

My daughter, since then has been in a National Autistic residential placement of 52 weeks, it was that, or weekly and they would not take her under that option. She was supposed to be assessed, before going but has never been educationally assessed for this placement. And her extreme behaviour at that time was found to be because of a severe faecal impaction .

We fought to see her for 3 weekends every month, and spend Easter, summer and Christmas in northern Ireland with her father’s family, which she loves, goes for walks and is a different child.

Clayton croft and her school Robert Ogden are paid 177,000 per year, with no reduction for the third of the year when we have Isabel.

Isabel, particularly since 2 years ago, when she had to be restrained, and received 48 bruises, has been very unhappy in the residential school, and has stopped going into her class. Isabel can no longer write her name, and barely reads now, as she did on leaving ordinary school.

We returned from Ireland with her after Christmas, where we were forced to take her off her antidepressants, after a week, as we could not get her to go out, and she attacked us. So she has been off them ever since.

Despite two meetings per year, and safeguarding officers getting involved, the independent reviewing service is useless, and there is just a huge cabal, between them and the autistic society, and a terrible conflict of interests, Issy is worth 177,000 per year to the autistic society, and money is also made from drug companies.

She is not physically well, but her GP is near the residential home 20 miles from us, as we suspect she has a faecal impaction, as she did in 2007, and which we cleared at home, but despite demands and it being put in a statutory review for the past 2 years, nothing has been done.

So far, Issy has had 5 social workers 4 key workers .

Why this is urgent, is, on returning home on Sunday, Issy had to wait outside the care home for 15 minutes, despite them knowing she always arrives back, at the same time, this made her melt down, and she had to be strained by a 18 stone team leader- we know this from a phone call.

We have never been able to ascertain what restraint techiques are used, and do not see any book kept when these are and injuries occur, So obviously we are demented with worry.

We are being pressurised to allow Isabel to go to a CAMHS assessment centre for 6 weeks, but do not trust the centre or motives of the social worker, as it is the same CAMHS team that put Isabel on respirodone in 2007 for 8 months, and did not monitor it, and it made her fat , breathless and crying. Without checking out her physical health and possible cause of her behaviour which was discovered to be due to a faecal impaction.

We feel this will happen again, and will allow the autistic society, to put her in nappies, and drag her round whilst she dies suffering terrible agony from a faecal impaction, under a chemical cosh. They emailed us today to say that it would be best if she did not come home at weekends, until this assessment.

The law is against us, and covers up, what really happens in care homes, as at the moment, she is looked after under s20 CA, we were forced into signing, but there will be a move to an emergency protection order, and our daughter will be at the mercy of the state, and we will not even be able to check, if she is being abused, and too much money, and jobs are at stake, for anyone to speak out.

Please help or let me know anyone who can.

Disabled children are being hijacked by charities, such as the autistic society to make millions, and CAMHs are of little use to the autistic, as there is no check on physical problems like Issy’s impaction. They merely provide chemical dangerous coshs, and, also making money out of it.

The only people who love Issy are us, and as happens we could legally be cut out of her life, and then who would care?.

Best wishes,

Finola Moss Sheffield

I received the reply below;

Dear Ms Moss,

Thank you for your correspondence of 4 February to Norman Lamb about your daughter’s treatment at school. I have been asked to reply.

I regret this is not within the Department of Health’s remit. After considering your email, I would recommend that you forward your correspondence to colleagues in the Department for Education where the staff are better able to answer your concerns. The contact details are:

Department for Education
Castle View House
East Lane

Care Act 2014 – Care to Ensnare ?


The Care Act 2014 campaigned for and approved by a plethora of newly created charities was lauded as much needed legislation to help the nation’s army of neglected, oppressed carers.

But all is smoke and mirrors; nothing is as it says on the tin.

As the Act is a tool to achieve, by smiling stealth the state’s real agenda to encage the old, disabled and vulnerable for profit.

Social care and the public purse are our new gold rush.

The Act provides each Local Authority is under a duty to  assess carers.

Such assessments can be individual or as a family.

LAs  already have a statutory duty to provide support for the disabled/old, but the Act does not put the LA under a duty to provide this  support to a family carer.

So the act  does not give carers any rights other than to be assessed.

So why  call it a Care Act ?

And where was the carers charity voice in parliament when it was passed ?

Why one wonders was the Act drafted to put LAs under a duty to assess carers but did not then go on to provide the assessed support needed?

This omission  reveals the real reason for Carers Assessments.

If it were to provide support to care within the family home a duty to do so would have been drafted into the Act.

Without this assessments are a waste of LA budgets in times of severe cut backs.

So why would parliament go to the trouble of creating a law to waste public money ?

So what is the real purpose of Carers Assessments ?.

They consist of psychological, physical, and medical evaluations, together with access to their medical records.

To assess, the effect of  caring on ‘wellbeing’, as specifically and, extensively set out in the act,

on carers hobbies, self esteem, dignity, socialising, emotional health.

This is a huge state intervention into the privacy of a carer.

And without the carer’s consent, encouraged by the Act a breach of their right to privacy under Human Rights Act 1998.

So why would our parliament, encourage state intervention which breached human rights ?

LAs, will only consider providing, ‘support’, if the effect on the carers wellbeing  is severe.

And even then, this provision is discretionary.

But if caring has a severe effect on the carer, this is evidence, they are unable to cope, and their  disabled caree is at risk of neglect even abuse.

And  such assessments can be used as evidence in the Court of Protection, or Care Courts that this is the case.

And even that a carer is mentally, ( they have 300 disorders to choose from ) or physically a risk to their disabled family member.

And, it is in the disabled/old’s ‘best interests’/ welfare, under the Mental Capacity Act/ Childrens Act  to be removed to privately commissioned state care.

The only Adult support now provided.

Enabing £4,500 + per week to be paid to a private for profit providers.

Adult services’ social workers are now ‘care managers’ managing such ‘support’.

Which is processed and enforced through the Court of Protection.

A huge, profit making industry has been created and social workers are used only as assessors and court enforcers.

Deskilled ‘professional’ operatives.

If, a family assessment is undertaken, the mental, and physical needs of other family members, can also be used, as evidence of possible abuse of the disabled, and indeed the other family members.

ie the effect of caring for the disabled person, on any children, living in the household.

Because of the Human Rights Act, parliament, was forced to allow, a carer, the right to refuse, an assessment of themselves, or, their family.

But, the carer will often not be told this.

And, Carers Assessment Orders, are standard in Court of Protection, and, Care Courts.

The Care Act, also states, direct payments for support of the old/disabled, cannot be claimed, if the disabled person, is ‘incapable’, under the Mental Capacity Act.

If a person is over 18, and, the Local Authority  have any doubts as to his mental capacity, ie if autistic or learning disabled, they will insist on a capacity assessment, before funding any services.

And he always fails.

So, now carers, are forced, to have support chosen by the LA.

No matter how inadequate, or, spying, to obtain evidence of abuse/neglect/unsafe home environment.

If, carers, do complain, an application for interim orders under the MCA, can be applied for by the LA, and used to, not only hold the carer to ransom, by threat of removal of their loved one, but can also be used, as an excuse to halt and avoid the LAs complaints process.

So workers, in your home, will be chosen, and controlled by the LA, whose only policy, is private residential care.

And, your daily private life, will be closely monitored by Social Services support agencies, and day centres.

Usually you will not be told of their ‘concerns’. The first you will know of them will often be in court documents applying to remove your loved one.

As it is an inquisitorial process they need not be proved.

The definition of ‘Capacity‘, under the Mental Capacity Act, is diluted, under the Carers Act.

To ‘difficulty making decisions’.

This makes it easier to then remove of their decisions from them by an order under the MCA by the Court of Protection.

And, practically makes it impossible, for a person to become involved in decision making.

Removing, an old/ disabled individual’s autonomy.

The ‘Care’ Act,  conspires, to give the LA, even more power, to remove the disabled, theirs, and their carers autonomy, and, human rights.

And, to ensnare, and remove the disabled, and old, to private, secret care for private profit.

Safeguarding Boards etc, are set up by the Act, to investigate the abuse, and, neglect of the disabled.

But, systemically, these, can only result, in an ever vigilant cabal, of GPs, social workers and support workers, looking only for abuse and neglect in the family home only.

These just give statutory weight to, the Multi Agency Safeguarding  Hubs MASH, now secretly created, and activated, in most areas of the country, safeguarding children and vulnerable adults, but not within the care provisions commissioned by the state.

This will mean’ a yellow star’ maker on all records of carers, and cared for, and, encourage, a feeding frenzy, of concern for those cared for at home, and, increase the spying of social services/ agency workers.

Care Act now puts LA’s under the duty to safeguard adults but not in the state care they commission

But do nothing, to reveal the abuse, in the state’s own care provision, which is, , provided in secret, and, allows no whistle blowers.

The Care Act, rather than championing their cause,heralds the death of the family carer, and, the advent of state privatised, unaccountable care for profit.

Misery, for the old, and disabled, isolated, their lives controlled by the  state.

Family members labelled neglectful abusers, and, cut out of their loved ones life, for ever.

Mental Capacity Act, Best Interests, Removal to State Care, and Human Rights.

Once, it has been assessed, that a person lacks ‘capacity’ to make a decision.

The MCA provides, any decision on their behalf, must be, as thought, the incapacited would have made it. s4.

But, with the huge caveat, of paternalism-

Only if, it is thought to be, in that persons, ‘best interests’.

This further removes, a deemed ‘incapable’s’ autonomy

Already illegal under Art 17 UN Directive as ‘substitute decision making’.

This is why, charities for the elderly, advocate, joint decision making.

Charities, for the mentally disabled/autistic do not.

Nor, do the courts.

Instead, what the incapacitated decision would have been, is overridden, to whatever the state believe is in his ‘best interests’.

The House of Lords  select committee report revealed,

‘families and carers painted a depressing picture of their exclusion from decision making’,

let alone, the incapable’s  exclusion.

At best, families, are consulted, but have no right, to be part of the decision making process.

Nor do Independent Mental Capacity Advocates.

A person’s ‘best interests’, is left to a social services /NHS best interests assessor.

With no independent voice.

Or, consideration of, the conflict of interests, arising from the profit from state private provision and, the LA policy of only funding such care, and, the incapacitated person’s wishes, and interest.

The ‘best interests’ assessors, if disputed,abrogates ultimate responsibility, to the courts.

But, the court of protection work load, since implementation of MCA, has increased by 60%, whilst staff decreased by 30 %.

There is no non means tested legal aid for fanilies,

And, as the HL report,  the legal profession, nor apparently, anyone, fully understands the Act.

But, is it appears to be being deliberately misinterpreted, as the drafters knew, it would have to be,

as the Act, as drafted is unworkable, as shown by the recent  Cheshire Supreme Court judgement on Deprivation of Liberty.

An official solicitor, will be appointed to represent, the ‘Incapacitated’.

As the incapable’s family’s interests, will usually be deemed to conflict with the incapable, as their neglect/abuse/incapacity will usually be alleged .

This Official Solicitor, is anything, but independent, as paid by the state.

And, receives information only, from professional agencies, instructed by the Local Authority .

As, his client is incapable of instructing him, he cannot take his instructions.

Therefore, an OS, cannot fulfil his duty to his client, and, the court, to obtain a fair hearing.

Illegal blanket assessments, and capacity tests, are used.

And are systemically, impossible, to challenge.

The act, even exempts an expert from liability, if he reasonably believes, a person is incapable.

But not, if he uses, an illegal test, or does not comply with the MCA, his duty to the incapacitated, or the court.

Additionally, the Act requires that in making the decision,

‘ regard must be had as to whether the purpose for which it is needed can be as effectively achieved in a way that is less restrictive of the person’s rights and freedom of action’.

As, the usual decision to be made, is removal from home, to a state private institution.

And,  as LAs have now, on the excuse of cost cutting, removed effective support at home.

It will not be difficult to show, that such care and support, cannot be ‘effectively achieved’, without removal.

So, the state’s withdrawal of support at home, and, within the community, aids the ‘best interests’ decision, they seek.

State  private profit providers, can then claim, the large amounts of money, the disabled, and their families, are entitled to,  under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Act 1970.

And worse, are being allowed to do so, for basic, unaccountable services.

And the incapable serve user, cannot complain.

The LA  adult social services care managers oversee them.

But, there is a conflict of interests, between this role, and their commissioning role.

As if the service is inadequate, the LA will be liable.

Adult Services Managers, have now replaced Adult Social Workers, except, for the enforcement process into state care.

As with all legislation, the MCA, must be interpreted, to give effect to the incapacitated human rights, of privacy, and a family life.

State removal, away from family, and 24 hour supervision, is the ultimate interference with theirs, and their family’s human right under s 8.

And, an incapacitated person, via a next friend, could apply for a prohibitory injunction under s8 Human Rights Act, to prevent his removal.

But, how would the incapacitated, or, his family know this.

And, be able to enforce it ?

The Official Solicitor, paid by the state, will be in favour of  removal.

The family member, has very limited  legal aid, and, the risk of the LAs costs.

And, will have to find a lawyer, willing to take on the state, and, be able to pay him.


House of Lords Select Committee Reports Mental Capacity Act is being implemented illegally

The Mental Capacity Act 05 has achieved the very opposite to it’s purported aim, the protection of our most vulnerable.

Whereas before, an individual’s decisions, could only be made for them, if sectioned by medical staff under MHA, or if they had agreed under an Enduring Power of Attorney or Advance Directive, or rarely under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court.

The MCA ‘capacity’ test allows the newly created Court of Protection to effectively make the decisions of anyone who might be affected by their physical, and/or mental condition, albeit temporary.

This makes it our most frightening, most abusable  and draconian law to date.

And, as the Court of Protection, acts in secret, gagging its participants for life, ‘the quiet revolution’, promised by the Act is  becoming the unseen surrender of our mentally vulnerable’s fundamental freedoms of abode, medication and care to the state.

The Act, states that it puts ‘the individual at the heart of the decision making process’, but then conspires to remove the individual’s means of making any decision.

So, one must wonder what its real purpose is.

Under the MCA it must be established, by those wishing to make decisions, on behalf of another that they lack ‘capacity’ as this is presumed by the Act.

In practice, the Act’s main use is to force the old, disabled and vulnerable to live in residential care or ‘independent’ of family living at 18 in ‘community living’ with for profit providers  taking over  and enforcing  all care, and medication decisions.

A family member  can apply for Deputyship at 18 in England, or Guardianship at 16 in Scotland, to make decisions on behalf of their child or parent.

If they do they risk a ‘capacity’ assessment  and as the assessors are the state a finding of incapacity, and then the LA rather will then get the deputyship.

Such capacity orders, can also be free standing, or in conjunction with a Deprivation of Liberty Order.

The House of Lords Select Committee in March 2014, found,

’ the poor implementation of the Act by health professionals, is to some extent, symptomatic of a wider marginalisation of mental health issues’.

The College of Social Work gave evidence that the Act was,

not fully understood by professionals, as an enabling piece of legislation, while families and carers painted a depressing picture of their exclusion from decision making’.

And, as there can be no effective challenge, a state Official Solicitor acts for those subject to it, the MCA can continue to be implemented illegally, with impunity.

The definition of capacity, and its assessment, is particularly misunderstood by professionals, with the Committee finding,

poor understanding of the presumption of capacity with evidence that blanket assumptions were being made on the basis of people’s conditions’.

When the Act provides, that even if a person is held to lack capacity, to make a ‘particular’ decision, they can be held to have sufficient capacity, to make a different type of decision.

If this affects their liberty the Supreme Court has held it illegal, without obtaining a Deprivation of Liberty Order.

This will have a big effect on the ability to physically examine and restrain, but, strangely does not affect the state’s right to force feed medication which allows perniciously such examination, and restraint.

The Act provides, that all practical steps, must have been taken, to help the person make the decision without success.

But, the House of Lords Select Committee Report found attempts to comply with this provision were  shockingly  ‘rare in practice’

They also found, Local Authorities, under used, Independent Mental Capacity Advocates, who were in any event, reluctant to challenge LAs due to funding conflicts and had no legal status under the MCA to do so.

As they have no right to take part in the ‘best interest’ decision making process.

All this is exacerbated, by the lack of any independent medical experts, being made available to a family, or patient, or non means tested legal aid, rendering the family and/or the alleged incapable, effectively powerless to ensure the Acts provisions are adhered to.

And family, being prevented from representing the wishes and welfare of their family member in the Court of Protection, and instead an Official Solicitor paid by the state is appointed.