Thomas Rawnsley escorted to his ‘community living’.
A young lady living independently in Winterbourne View.
Far from giving carers rights and support, the Care Act conspires to break family carers, and gain evidence it is not in a vulnerable person’s ‘ best interests’ to remain at home.
The removal from the family home to extremely lucrative- £6,000 + a week private provision is euphemistically termed ‘independent’ and now rebranded ‘community living.
It is anything but as every move of this ‘living’ is controlled in secret, and away from public and relatives’ eyes.
Family are often excluded on the grounds visits upset and are therefore not in the ‘best interests’ of those living in the ‘community’.
It is still termed ‘independent ‘ and ‘living in the community’ despite courts deeming it a deprivation of liberty with its 24/7 supervision with no choice given.
Is there any evidence, that residential living for life is actually in a persons ‘best interests’?
No, it is, because the states says so.
But no one measures the outcomes of those who live there, as individuals, or, as a group.
So there is no effective monitoring of this deemed ‘best interests’
An Adult Services Manager, reviews the Care Provider’s, his employer commissioned Care Plan.
The Care Quality Commission may make announced inspections of documentation and placement.
A CQC whose regulation has been critised, as not fit for purpose, and who ignored the Winterbourne View and Thomas Rawnsley.
Inspecting Cambian’s Kingdom House for the first time on announcement, only after Paula Rawnsley’s complained of her son’s abuse and found none and rated it ‘good.’
And then 10 months after Thomas unexplained death the CQC merely did a second announced inspection rating it again ‘good’.
The state does not inspect and assess the kind of life, they decide is in a person’s ‘ best interests’, nor, review their situation, once a person has been removed there.
So they cannot, and do not bother to explain, how such a life can be in anyone’s let alone the vulnerables ‘best interests’.
And the vulnerable, his IMCA, or parents are not allowed to decide what is in their adult child’s ‘best interests’.
And, a family have no enforceable rights, so cannot protect their loved ones, no matter how serious the abuse, or, inadequate the care as Paula Rawnsley found out when she was even gagged from going to the press etc weeks before he died.
The government’s plan is enforced, unaccountable ‘community living’ and medication for maximum profit, claimable for life.
And, it has ensured, the captive consumers, have no voice, rights, choice, or means of escape.
The assessors of ‘best interests’ are jointly managed by the Adult Social Services and Health and Social Care Trusts.
And their decision enforced by the Court of Protection.
Their weapons Care Act safeguarding, wellbeing and ‘best interests’ and 433 million public aid.
All are part of a multiagency safeguarding hub- MASH, which includes GP practices.
Here they share unchallenged ‘information’ illegally, without check on its accuracy or reliability.
All are charged and paid, to collaborate to implement government policy, and so potential/future and/ or existing neglect, abuse and safeguarding issues will be found.
GPs, and home nurses monitor and assess, the cared for and carers’ health and wellbeing.
But only as this relates to actual, or risk of, neglect ,abuse and/or safe guarding.
Occupational Therapists are part of the team, and are now treated as appropriate trained professionals, thanks to lobbying by the College of Occupational Therapists (COT).
They assess wellbeing through day to day activities.
If there is no support , day centres closed, and schools SEN funding ending at 16, such activities are limited.
And family Carers will find it financially and physically, impossible to continually provide activities and 24/7 support, particularly without respite, again no longer provided.
Occupational Therapists also assess the ‘suitability’ of a person’s living arrangements, and, as housing, equipment, beds, etc, are not funded, this is likely to be inadequate.
Person Centred Planners are funded by the Local Authority.
They assess interests, desires and activities, past and present.
And as stated these are now likely to be limited.
The PCP then writes a statement in the first person, purporting to be the disabled person, describing all they previously did and/or want to do, but no longer can. But may ignore their wish to remain at home, and that they love their family.
And anything suggesting neglect/abuse/ safeguarding may also be mentioned- ”I wish I could see more of Daddy’, ‘I don’t like it when Mummy cries’. ‘I like to help Mummy cook’.
The Developmental Officer, a care worker paid at a higher rate, will assess how the cared for are being ‘developed’ within the family home.
A clinical psychologist assesses the effect of living at home, any emotional abuse and the general psychological wellbeing of carers and cared for.
A psychiatrist looks for signs, or risk of mental disorders of carer and cared for, and the effect of caring on them both.
If any care support is funded, this must, under the Care Act be chosen by the LA.
And it will be briefed to assess family carers’ care, and look for safeguarding, neglect and abuse risks.
The team will have regular secret meetings, but concerns, and assessments will not be mentioned to family carers, until disclosed in reports just before a court hearing to decide ‘best interests’.
The LA and HSCT lawyers and the Official Solicitor, will agree these assessments, as will the Judge.
The Emperors Clothes of ‘expert’ corroboration, will appear over whelming, but lack any substance, and remain unchecked and unchallenged , but decides a family’s fate.
In breach of the disabled, and their family’s human rights to privacy, family life and a fair hearing.
And of the Equality Act, and Discrimination Act, as the disabled are being discriminated against.
If an autistic, add the Autism Act, as their autism is not considered .
It is also in breach of the MCA, as blanket capacity assessments are used, the wishes ( to stay at home ) of the incapacitated ignored, and the most, ( removal) ,rather than the least restrictive option is ordered.
But systemically, these rights cannot be enforced, and are ignored.
And at best 1 family representative must fight 3 lawyers and an army of ‘experts’.
We need actual figures of those incarcerated, drugged, isolated, in misery barely existing and dying in unknown numbers of ‘natural causes’ with no investigation.
All earning millions for their jailers, experts, managers, courts, lawyers and venture capital investors.
And the situation is getting far worse, as numbers are increasing and ever larger Units are being built and the government has fed 433 million to LAs, and HSCTs to encage via safeguarding and MCA ‘best interests’.
We can only glean by comments of care workers, what is happening in these places, the CQC are doing nothing about the chosen venture capital backed monopolies like Cambian/Lifeways.
Our most vulnerable will become audit statistics, to make ever greater profits in ever larger more profitable settings, the bungalows replaced by wards, and families will not even be allowed to know where they are housed, let alone worry about their distance from them.
Justice Munby in Re:S, sums it up for me perfectly:
“115] I am not saying that there is in law any presumption that mentally incapacitated adults are better off with their families: often they will be; sometimes they will not be. But respect for our human condition, regard for the realities of our society and the common sense to which Lord Oliver of Aylmerton referred in In re KD
…, surely indicate that the starting point should be the normal assumption that mentally incapacitated adults will be better off if they live with a family rather than in an institution – however benign and enlightened the institution may be, and however well integrated into the community – and that mentally incapacitated adults who have been looked after within their family will be better off if they continue to be looked after within the family rather than by the State.
 We have to be conscious of the limited ability of public authorities to improve on nature. We need to be careful not to embark upon ‘social engineering’. And we should not lightly interfere with family life. If the State – typically, as here, in the guise of a local authority – is to say that it is the more appropriate person to look after a mentally incapacitated adult than her own partner or family, it assumes, as it seems to me, the burden – not the legal burden but the practical and evidential burden – of establishing that this is indeed so. And common sense surely indicates that the longer a vulnerable adult’s partner, family or carer have looked after her without the State having perceived the need for its intervention, the more carefully must any proposals for intervention be scrutinised and the more cautious the court should be before accepting too readily the assertion that the State can do better than the partner, family or carer.
But, as now, if no support provided by LA, as required by Chronically Sick and Disabled Act 1970, but if sued they defend, that support is residential, then likely to be held a proportionate interference by state under HRA, and the lack of available care at home would rebut the presumption.
So Munby’s statements of humanity, and obvious ‘best interests’ can be subverted by LA policy, as can MCA.