‘Best Interests’: no choice, no oversight, no accountability the sad story of MN.

hitler-quote lie

A residential placement commissioned by the LA and/or a clinical commissioning group is invariably in an ‘incapacitated’ person’s ‘best interests’.

The Court of Protection is not given a choice of placement, it is forced to rubber stamp the executive’s decision.

And it doesn’t need to be proved that this placement is in an individual’s best interests.

The Court of Protection does not explore a placement’s previous outcomes, nor insist on a trial period.

Thomas Rawnsley’s ‘best interests’ were served by living in the newly built Kingdom House, 80 miles from his family, where he died at 20.

COP ordered the placement without even explanation as to how Cambian intended to cope with Thomas’ trauma , autism and Downs Syndrome .

The court his family nor Thomas were given any other alternatives.

And the Court of Protection will not interfere with a care provider’s services as shown in N v ACCG and Others [ 2017] UKSC 22


Where a mother’s simple requests to assist in her 23 year old disabled son’s personal care and have him visit his family at home, were refused by his provider, supported by the Clinical Commissioning Group, Official Solicitor and Local Authority .

It took 4 QCs and their barristers and solicitors and 2,029 pages, of which 1,289 were expert evidence, for the Supreme Court via Lady Hale to decide;

It was a case in which the court did not have power to order the Clinical Care Group to fund what the parents wanted’.

So if the Supreme Court of the Land does not have the power who does ?

It would appear, for profit monopoly care providers are above the law.

Surely, the hundreds of thousands spent on this action, would have gone a long way to providing this extra funding, which was more than available from the £8,000 + per week paid to wash, dress, feed, drug and wheel out of this young man by basic wage shift staff.

This judgment is a very disturbing precedent from the highest court in the land, which allows ever more commercially aware providers, to assert ‘cost implications’, to override what is clearly in a person’s best interests .

At 8, MN had been taken into care and placed in a childrens home despite Bracewell J stating in the care proceedings;

‘‘The closeness of the family is striking. The physical care and attention to safety has been exemplary. All the family have been involved with every aspect of minute by minute care and supervision. There is no doubt that love and commitment have been shown to these children to the highest degree.”

We can only guess at the devastating effect on  a vulnerable autistic child of being torn from his five siblings and parents love and all he knew, and placed in an institution with strangers.

We can only guess at the effect of his continued maximum profit ‘care’ and unchecked enforced poly pharmacy medication.

We are told at 18 after 10 years of such ‘care’, on the LA applying to the Court of Protection MN now had

“severe learning and physical disabilities together with autism and an uncommon epileptic condition resulting in frequent seizures and risk of sudden death.

( epilepsy/ seizures are a known side effect of long term neurological medication and increased by polypharmacy and higher dosage  see here the clinical evidence https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12973403 )

And a nurse had to be available at all times to administer emergency drugs to MN if needed

MN had poor muscle tone and uses a wheelchair.

( Autistics in institutions  are often confined to wheelchairs, as unable to walk safely due to the effects of medication,  long term anti psychotics which cause suppression of the neurological system worsening over time and painful muscle spasms )


He was doubly incontinent.

(The possible side effect of  Risperidol and faecal impaction? As with my daughter)

MN has the cognitive ability of a child aged less than 1 year.

( How could this be properly assessed, in view of his autism and medication, anti psychotics causing brain shrinkage and learning deterioration )

He has no speech ( there are many mute autistics, and trauma causes loss of speak, as does the inability to move due to medication ) but can express his feelings by facial expression, sounds and gestures.

MN needs help with feeding as he is vulnerable to choking; ( Medication causes the suppression of all muscle use )

he requires 2:1 care with his personal care and accessing the community. Overall MN has to have his carers nearby at all times and during the night MN has one sleeping member of staff and one member of staff who stays awake to look after him.”

Since his 18th birthday MN had lived in a care home which we are told by an independent social worker provides, “a safe, settled and supportive environment”.

And parents have “for the time being” accepted that this is where he should stay, although it is clear, their ultimate aim is for him to come and live with them.

The parents wished for MN to come and visit them in their home six miles away .

An occupational therapist had assessed the home and concluded  it could accommodate MN and his wheelchair for a short visit.

But trained carers would have to go with him, be allowed into the home to settle him down, and wait outside while he was there. One of the carers would have to be trained to administer emergency medication if required.

Only the care home manager and her deputy were willing to do this, “the rest of her staff fearing that the parents would not co-operate, would interfere with the care they provided for MN and would be aggressive and intimidating towards them”.

This,  seems improbable, as these staff are effectively itinerant and powerless and do what they are told. That is if these never proved allegations were true.

Hence, the care home was unwilling to facilitate MN’s visits to the family home, which would require alternative carers to be trained and paid for.

MN’s mother also wished to be allowed to assist the care home staff with his intimate care when she was visiting him.

And an independent social worker thought that MN’s interaction with his mother in this way could form an important element in his quality of life, provided that she was able to work with the staff.

But the care home was unwilling to allow this, partly to fears as to the mother’s co-operation, but also because the parents had declined an offer of the necessary training in manual handling

The CCG’s position was that it was not in MN’s best interests for his mother to be involved in his personal care or for him to have visits to the family home.

The staff were unwilling to facilitate this and the CCG was not prepared to fund alternatives.

The Official Solicitor for MN supported the CCG’s position.

The parents disputed this position and the reasons for it.

In particular, they claimed that the care home’s fears about lack of co-operation were unwarranted and  the mother was now prepared to undergo the necessary training

At 11.32 pm the day before the CA hearing , counsel for the local authority emailed the other parties to give notice of her intention to argue that the Court of Protection had “no jurisdiction” to decide the issues.

The matters the parents wanted were “not on the table” given that the CCG had said that it was not willing to provide.

The CA agreed, as did the Supreme Court, the later holding that the matters were not ‘jurisdictional’ but intended by the MCA.

So at 8 MN left his home and family forever .

His fate, the fate of many autistics, learning disabled and behaviourally challenged

And these numbers with the multi billion pound bounty on their heads can only  increase.

And whilst COP will not order a mother helping with care, or home visits, it came to light via an investigation into the COP by the HL Select Committee in 2013, that autistic’s healthy teeth were being removed on COP order in secret to avoid self-harm.


no teeth hqdefault








  1. I followed this case live on the Supreme Court website. My Consel was involved and she lost {just as in my Family case} yet again, even though she was RIGHT.

    I mailed her before the verdict was delivered. I said “Well if the CCG cannot provide Funding in the Family home and Mum is barred from helping in MN’s care, then by all means, SEND HIM BACK HOME”!! but, as the President {Sir Minby} said to the Bar Council in 2016 “The Family Justice System lags woefully, indeed shamefully”.

    See the main problem in my view is “The position of the OS”-whatever he chooses regardless to if it lawful, humane, proportionate and in the vulnerable’s Best Interests.. the bloody Judges AGREES and follow-suit.

    I wonder what goes through a QC’s {or any Barrister’s} head when they keep losing cases that they should have WON while, giving it their all!! I know of an Australian Barrister that went into forced retirement and rebelled against the unjust system. He said “he won 1 in 10 cases ad he should have won all of them”. He’s got guts.. good luck in his new peofession.

    I do hope this goes the ECHR as MONEY {as Finola says} is not the problem if they will think closely as to how much they spent unneccessarily. I believe that one of the reason why they refused the mother’s help is to create ‘Parent Alienation’. And with her involved while they want MN to live in the Community.. their fear is that, her bonding is not a good idea {just like in my case}.

    Family Law in the UK has gone spellboundedly MAD!!!
    Let’s see what the Government will come up with at the end of May as far as DOLs {LPS, Family involvement, independent professionals & impartiality} and Family Law changes. Fingers crossed.


    1. Lawyers are now prescribed and if acting for family usually paid losers.

      The role of the Official Solicitor is now subverted to that of an investigator, not the Next Friend role he legally has, and this investigation serves to fulfil the states purpose of for life, for profit care.

      Why are family, the only people who do care and have for years and are not paid, not allowed to represent their children/ spouse/parents ?

      Legally, an Official Solicitor is only appointed as a last resort, but this has been subverted to a first and only resort.

      This must change, as there are now, as here 3 lawyers, paid out of public funds against one family lawyer, if they can find the funds themselves.

      This is increasing costs, as are the huge amount of expert reports, that are standard and not needed. Here over a thousand pages of them. Why ? For what ? For a man drugged in a wheel chair to go home and his Mother help with his personal care .

      This is a huge unchecked gravy train for most, that is why there is no push to change and will not be.

      So many are feeding in. And yet the COP uses cost to limit hearings that are needed to prove state allegations against parents, and even threatens them with costs of the other sides 3 lawyers if they want to dispute a matter.

      This appears a seamless cabal ruled by the executive whose purpose is to harvest as many ‘disabled’ as possible for private pharma and residential profit for life .

      And according to the Supreme Court this is what the MCA intended.

      The MCA needs scrapping, we are the only country in the world to have such law which in any event are being enacted illegally .

      And the only country to make huge profits out of public money and our most vulnerables’ lives with no accountability.

      And its got much much worse in the last 5 years.


    1. I can only help by exposure of what is happening to so many and on matters that are fundamental to so many but mentioned no where else.

      The rights of hundreds of thousands and increasing not to be institutionalised and medicated against theirs and their families wishes and definitely not in their ‘best interests’ as it destroys literally their lives and the lives of those who have lost them.

      And all this is for unaccountable profit yet justified by cost cutting.

      In any event, no one has any enforceable rights or options, in courts controlled by an executive that is enforcing this ‘welfare’ system.


  2. If MN were able to tell the SW ” I miss my family.. I want to go home”, what do you honestly think the SW will do? The SW will say “SHUT-UP! YOU ARE NOT GOING ANYPLACE..THE CoP SAYS THAT YOU MUST STAY HERE”.

    This their ethics..Severing Family ties is paramount for the LA, OS and the CoP.

    I also believe that ECHR will embrace this too.

    I don’t know why they persist that we have Human Rights here in the UK?? WE DO NOT HAVE ANY HUMAN RIGHTS WHATSOEVER. If we had, my vulnerable son would be still living with us and not secret hidden in some derelict abusive home with NO FAMILY AT ALL.


  3. How does one challenge the CoP after they collude and make wrong inhumane decisions? NO one can’t as the Court of Appeal “believes and accepts” all the LIES pieced together by the inept LA and OS while, the vulnerable and their innocent caring Family suffers immensely. I think the professionals is just interested in lining their pockets with CASH.


    1. As evidenced in this blog the adult care system is a honed cabal, supported and created by successive governments since Blair enacted the MCA.

      It has only one purpose, to find and encage, as many as possible commodities to provide a lifetime of increasing income in secret.

      And the MCA was drafted for this purpose, and is unworkable and in breach of the rule of law, and therefore should never have been enacted as drafted. But is now supported by MCA awareness and training of all lawyers, agents of the state, and judiciary.

      And the COP has worsened, not been made better as only last year, rules were introduced that are interpretated so that even capacity appeals are treated as case management decisions, so that there is no right of appeal beyond the local High Court, which is merely a designated tier 2 judge usually one sitting in the Family Courts.

      Yet a declaration of incapacity which is only allowed as provided for under the MCA, is needed before the COP can have any continuing jurisdiction in a matter.

      So the freedom and non enforced medication of now over a million citizens appears to be legally spurious and Writs of Habeas Corpus possibly applied for but who would apply for them let alone grant them.

      Family rarely if ever represent the family of those subject to proceedings instead a state remitted Official Solicitor is appointed, who as I state in Gold Rush 4 post, does not represent the wishes of the ‘inacapacitated’ but instead those the LA/NHS believe are in his ‘best interests’.

      And where is the consideration of the HRA in all these cases ? The MCA should be interpretated under or indeed implementation of the MCA per se particularly s1 its overriding provision ?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s