Acting out? – Dont worry we have medications for that!

This is a post from  Justice for Thomas Rawnsley’s blog.

With photos taken of Thomas,months before he died, in Cambian owned ;community living Kingdom House in Sheffield, where he was taken after a long history of care abuse involving one carer,who had said’ How many fingers can I break this time’, but was unable to as Thomas was double jointed.

After this, Thomas was found difficult to care for, so was sent to this ATU, where he was the only patient, and keeping it open, by his abuse, being used, to claim £12500 per week for the ‘treatment’, evidenced by the beyond shocking photos taken.

Thomas  on medication .

This is the unashamed use of the LA, and our government, of the most vulnerable for investment, and huge profit, using public funds, and breaching their statutory duty to care for them, but to claim the maximum money available under law for their ‘care’, on the basis of their ‘disbility’.

This is also 4 years after Winterbourne View was officially investigated.

Since then there has been more abuse, and death, for profit, of our most vulnerable.

The only move, via Norman Lamb, and LB Bill, is to move them out of NHS, MHA ‘care’/’treatment’, to LA, MCA ‘care’, for life in independent for profit living, with no reviews. And ASD/LD are now only being admitted to private hospitals like CYGNET/PRIORY group

Thomas, was placed in such independent living accommodation, where he was abused, and died.

A Surprisingly Good Visit from NHS Mental Health

This day proved a welcome relief, in a life of no reliefs.

The psychiatrist, a tall, attractive Scottish lady, was extraordinarily human, unassuming, and affable.

And the psychologist, unlike some I’ve taught, and the one in 2007, did not observe, or judge me, and had personality.

And, usefully, busied herself with Isabel’s Progress File from Robert Ogden School.

So, all went well in the kitchen.

So well,  two hours flew by without coffee.

I cannot relay, how good it feels, to be respected, and deferred to.

It had never happened before.

I almost felt like a person, rather than the object of negative analysis.

Issy had been up most of the night and was still sleep.

The long awaited period was evident, when we eventually wondered into her bedroom, andwere told to get out.

As usual, no one appeared to know anything,  so were filled in on the chronology to date.

The psychiatrist asked about food preferences, medical allergies and medication.

Worryingly,the type of questions asked before an inpatient stay.

I hoped,they were standard, but then wondered why, the information was not obtained from Isabel’s medical records.

But such are the mysteries of information sharing protocols.

Annoying for us, and professionals

The only major worrying question, on reflection was,

‘Did Issy eat with us?’

My proven justifiable  paranoia, bounced me back, to our first education package, and a comment, I had made to a Reed agency education carer, who’d latterly became a spy.

It was innocuous enough, but, it appears anything, can be made to fit the agenda.

On describing Issy’s trauma, after her 48 bruise NAS restraint, I remarked, ’Issy  would no longer sit and eat with us at the table in our apartment lounge in Ireland’.

This appeared to have been seized upon, by the worker’s grilling ‘education’ boss, and  relayed to our social worker and spun in  our last core assessment to;

‘It has been observed by workers that the family tend to sit around the table together to eat while Isobel eats alone in the lounge’

I complained about this in April 2014, pointing out, it could not ‘have been observed by workers that the family tend to sit around the table to eat’ as;

a) No worker has ever seen us eat as a family.

And,

b) We do not ‘eat as a family’, except at Christmas and Easter; the drop leaf table in the kitchen being rarely used.

We eat from plates on our knees, in the lounge, watching TV, as we are soap fans,

And

c) Issy has never eaten in the lounge.  She  eats in her bedroom.

It had been made in a sectionheaded Comment on the young person’s needs in relation to family and social relationships, thus, the workers impossible observation, of our deliberate isolating of Issy, appearing evidence of  emotional abuse.

This being one of the very, if only specific questions asked of Issy, and coupled with ‘ I wouldn’t like crumbs in the sitting room’ was both infuriating and worrying.

As it appeared information we had tried to officially correct and was incorrect second hand hearsay, as no worker had ever seen us eat let alone at a table, had been relayed to a NHS psychiatric team charged with assessing  any  emotional abuse of Issy at home.

Excepting for this rather large ponderable,- where they working from a crib sheet ? all went well.

Angel Eyes appeared on Monday and Thursday.

And as usual was a star, and worked her socks off.

Issy has been up, and in a good mood, despite the period.

But wants to be permanently tickled.

But then, who doesn’t?

Rip off social care.. the plight of the disabled family.

Friday 6^th March

All is very bizarre,

All is very dire.

We, as always, are kept in the dark, until, whatever happens, happens.

As you can imagine, in between my waves of nausea, and caring for poor Issy, I have been kept, very busy, coping with officialdom.

I await the arrival of the other lady from the agency, who attends the social services’ weekly ‘surveillances’.

We had our 5 th ‘surveillance’, with our 2 social workers, two days ago, the sixth, next week, is the psychologist’s visit, to declare Issy a vegetable, and, observe her emotional state, and, no doubt, ours.

We are not told, nor dare ask, not that any definitive answer would be given, how long the ‘surveillances’ go on for.

It is now 11. 00 am, the lady was due at 10. 00am, so I assume, she is not coming.

She didn’t.

We have no timetable of hours.

Angel Eyes , has supported for three weeks, from 10-4 Monday, 10-3 Thursday.

We received an invoice, from the agency, for £710.50 for 50.75 hours support for February, at £14 per hour, yet Angel Eyes, is paid £8 per hour, and, no traveling expenses.

And, has to put her time sheets  online.

She also, appears, to organise support, and, inform us.

Personal ( direct payment ?) services, the basis, I assumed, this agency was paid on, allows £7.50 per hour, and a £30 per month administrative fee.

A little over half, of the agency invoice.

Adult services wouldn’t pay the £710.50, as the agency, is not approved by them

But, as the LA pay, are the source of all future lucrative, reliable business,and the piper that calls the tune.

The agency boss, assured us, he could have, our ‘pot of money’, held by the previous education package, (‘fist lady’ and co, no show), transferred over to his company.

Remember, the only alternative support, we were offered, was  ’ Fist Lady’, and,  new friend……

So, what can we do to be reimbursed this, and future support?

Sue the Local Authority, if we can find  the forms, pay the court fee, cope with the hassle, -service, posting etc, and  pay for the extra support, to attend court, and risk the LA’s legal costs, if we lose, which would be more, than the £720.

Courts are now profit making, and provide no legal advice, just an expensive, time consuming answering machine  service.

We have already paid out, £900 on officialdom.

No, we have no law, as, it cannot be enforced.

And complaints mechanisms are shut down on a court application.

So are living in the wild  west.

Just a reminder; the new agency support, is in lieu of Issy’s education, social care, respite, and NHS care.

Another reminder; we have had no overnight respite, other than, the three nights blogged in July 2014, and 3 evenings, in over 2 years.

The adult services lady told us, the insisted on, by social services agency  support, of 2 workers in the kitchen for  7 months, was to ‘interact’ with Isabel, as she fleetingly appeared in the kitchen for juice and food, and not to help me with cleaning  or even Issy’s personal care.

No one  knows, the role ‘support’ has, is it education, personal care, respite ?

Nor indeed, if they will turn up, or, leave, never, to be seen again.

Nor, more crucially,what the lies/spin, they report back to social services.

Do note, under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Act 1981, up to £82,000, can be claimed, legally, just for Isabel’s social care, and,a similar amount, from the NHS.

If Issy is in residential state care  over £4,000 will be paid to her private provider.

Hence, the push for Issy’s independent, away from family living, so this statutory entitlement,  in addition to  her benefits- housing, mobility, DLA, ILF, CA,can be claimed.

Clearly venture capitalists, have realised the autistic are a gold mine.

But has, or will, all this public money, help Issy ?

It hasn’t so far.

In fact it has caused her problems.

She is  still suffering, reignited post traumatic disorder, from her abuse in NAS care, exacerbated, by the fear of leaving her home, and, not returning, created by her first ‘education’ package, who informed her, she could not live with Mummy and Daddy.

As l write , Issy is echoing the words of the same NAS key worker, in the worker’s actual voice, replete with Yorkshire vowels, and, sneer.

Issy must have said to her, ‘Where is Mummy and Daddy?’,

the worker repeats this question, as Issy echoes, in the workers mocking voice,

‘Where’s Mummy and Daddy’, followed by a bellow of,

‘They’re not interested’.

What has been done about this abuse?

Nothing, as denied and usefully to justify antipsychotic medication, interpreted, as Issy  hearing voices.

Her 48 bruises in NAS residential school we declared and recorded for all time as self harm.

A National Autistic Society  claiming  £ 60,000 per annum, up until 24/5/2013, from the NHS, according to an NHS letter to me, despite the fact Isabel returned home, on the 29/1/2013, where she has never received any NHS care.

In addition, a further £60,000, for her education, as education and NHS paid 2/3rds of the £177,000,  ‘tax free’ per annum, paid to the National Autistic Society School as a charity.

There was no deduction the third of the year Issy was with us.

We paid NAS pocket money, and towards clothes.

All paid until May 2013, three and a half months, after Isabel returned home on 29 the January .

So much for cost cutting, value for money, and helping the disabled, and their family.

During these years, we were paid £20 per week Disability Living Allowance.

And still only this amount, for 4 months after Isabel had returned to live at home.

Isabel now receives £125 ( reduced to£105) DLA, and I receive £77 carer’s allowance ( reduced to £62.50p), no free nappies, no beds, no nothing….. Just the privilege now, of paying, through the nose,  for agency care.

Here are the statistics of number of hours of unpaid care by family.http://www.carersuk.org/news-and-campaigns/press-releases/facts-and-figures

Why can family carers not even claim any of their time caring, and worse still any  LA support is deducted from the disabled’s DLA.

Who’d  want to be a disabled family in this country, think of our plight, when ‘Pudsey Bear’ and ‘Children in Need’ come begging.

The door bell rings.

My heart leaps.

It’s difficult not to be paranoid, when you are secretly and silently surrounded.

But it’s just the nice post lady, a kind, familiar face.

And my fifth letter, 4 from the NHS hospital, and 1 personal one from the GP, about my failure to attend a Diabetic Eye Screening Appointment.

I have not got diabetes; even my 2 GP results 2 years ago were insufficiently raised.

I have no symptoms, but what does that matter.

Truth is irrelevant.

The box has been ticked.

Standard Capacity Assessments, Stephen Hawking would fail, without his box.

The mental health industry is awash with captive consumers, who have never even engaged with their capacity assessment under the Mental Capacity Act.

This is illegal but this is how it happens.

Let us explore, what happens, on the day your loved one, is declared effectively, a vegetable and loses his right to make any decision. for the rest of his life.

The psychologist/ assessor, the MCA does not stipulate who can assess capacity it appears anyone can, will attend the autistic and or learning disabled young adult or confused granny.

And, most likely be ignored.

The autistic may take an interest in their name, name tag, earrings, lipstick, pen, but then go back to their DVD, computer, or, just want juice.

The assessor may say words to the effect,

’ I have come to see whether, or not you want to represent yourself in court, so that your best interests/ what is best for you in the future, can be decided by an important person, called a judge’.

The first decision, an autistic, learning disabled or granny must be found ‘incapable’ of making.

The autistic will remain unresponsive with blank eyes, that hide so much, as would the author of, ‘Through The Eyes of Aliens’ a highly intelligent, mute autistic.

Who, most likely could be found ‘incapable’ had she not written an academic book.

By now, the vulnerable person, who rarely sees people will be feeling threatened by a stranger in his personal space asking him a question, which means little to a non- autistic.

He will want to be alone to comfort himself in the autistic world, where he alone resides.

So he will tell him to go away, get out of his room and become agitated.

The assessor will leave as his training is ever  risk  averse and he knows nothing, of this particular autistic’s behaviour or habits.

What will happen then?

The MCA Code of Practice provides;

4.57 There may be circumstances in which a person whose capacity is in doubt refuses to undergo an assessment of capacity or refuses to be examined by a doctor or other professional.

In these circumstances, it might help to explain to someone refusing an assessment, why it is needed, and  the consequences of refusal.

But threats, or attempts to force the person to agree to an assessment are not acceptable..

No one can force an assessment, unless, there are serious concerns about mental health, and the Mental Health Act can be invoked, as he is a danger to himself, or others’.

As by s1 MCA and the common law a person is capable and has autonomy over what happens to him.

But here is the shocker…

A person can be assessed as lacking capacity to refuse or agree to a capacity test.

As 4.58 Code of Practice provides, 

  ‘If the person lacks capacity to agree or refuse, the assessment can normally go ahead, as long as the person does not object to the assessment, and it is in their best interests’.

But how, is it possible for a person, to lack capacity to agree or refuse  an assessment but still  have sufficient capacity to object to the same assessment ?

Isn’t ‘objecting’ the same as ‘refusing’?

This makes no sense.

And surely if he refuses to engage is this not ‘objecting to the assessment’?

He has a right to refuse/object, as  he is presumed  capable under the Act.

But, despite this, the Code provides, ‘the assessment can then normally go ahead’.!

But, what is this ‘assessment’ that now goes ahead and what is it based on?

And, as consent, from a  capable person, must be obtained, to any assessment, this assessment would be a trespass to the person.

To say nothing of a breach of his human rights.

And, if it did go ahead, is effectively non existent.

As it, and the  assessment of the person’s incapacity to consent could  only be based under the MCA the functional test.

And, this,  in the circumstances,  as no questions have been asked of the assessee can only be based on, the autistic’s  general presentation and the condition , which is illegal, under the MCA.

And where does this fit in with s1 MCA which declares that there is a presumption of capacity until proved otherwise.

And highly discriminatory so likely illegal under the Equality Act.

And, in breach of the guidelines set out in statutory form in the Autism Act 2009, which would allow a judicial review of any assessment.

Also, this could only be a functional assessment, based on, the autistic’s failure to engage.

Also based on the autistic’s condition and presentation.

Ilegal under the MCA.

In fact this test, would not even. provide evidence, of suspected/alleged incapacity, let alone, amount to a formal capacity test, accepted by the court of protection, as rebutting evidence to  remove the presumption of capacity, given at common law, and in the Act.

In any event, the MCA capacity test per se, is not, applicable to the autistic mind, and is meaningless to the autistic.

And, thus proves nothing.

We also have the problem that many rightly believe autism is not an ‘impairment of the mind’ and therefore not covered by the MCA.

Yet, worryingly, and illegally, the Standard Assessment of Capacity Record to be completed by the Local Authority guidance allows for such assessments as it commences as follows;

‘The assessment should end if the person is unable to progress through the functional test. For example if a person cannot understand the decision they will not be able to retain it, weigh it in the balance or meaningfully communicate a decision’.

To obtain a Capacity Order, from the Court of Protection, the Local Authority need to show suspected incapacity by, stating the functional test, is satisfied.

Again, in respect to autistics, the suspicion, is normally based on the autistic’s condition, and presentation, and assessments, based on such evidence, are  not allowed, per se.

The guidance then continues,

The important point is to provide evidence that you have put the decision that needs to be made to the person,. and what their response is using direct quotes and or a description of their reaction.

If they cannot due to the level of impairment process the information there is nothing to be gained by continuing’.

Wow.

Local Authorities, do not even have to administer the functional test, to render a person incapable.

So back to our autistic/granny being assessed, the assessor can read out the questions, be ignored, and then state in his Record of Assessment Form, that the response was silence, and render this person, incapable of making any decision for the rest of his life.

And  it appears, from the guidance to the Standard Assessment Form, there is nothing about the fact, the assessment must be conducted under the best possible circumstances for the asssessee, having regard to, his state of mind, physical ease, to enable, the maximum possibility of capacity being found, as required by s1 MCA.

All  the assessor needs to show, by ticking the boxes on a standard form, is that a meaningless process, has taken place.

How easily assessors earn their money.

How shocking, effectively anyone, but particularly the autistic, could lose the right, to make any decision, for life on the basis of an illegal, meaningless, non assessment.

Even, Stephen Hawking, had he not been fitted with a voice box, would, it appears, have been deemed ‘incapable’.

But not if you are autistic.