The Mental Capacity Act in practice -emancipated or insentient?

feguard

untitled

8 years ago, the Mental Capacity Act was, supposedly implemented to provide a  ’ legal’ framework, to empower, and emancipate,   the incapables’ ‘decision making’.

But has it?

No. See House of Lords Select Committee report.

The Local Authority strategy, to remove all suspected ‘incapables’ to private for profit state care, increased rapidly, after 2007.

Studies show, these removals   were at first,  often illegal, without reference to the Court  of Protection. http://www.communitycare.co.uk/2012/10/30/where-social-workers-are-going-wrong-on-the-mental-capacity-act/

Whereas, now the Court rubber stamps  removal.

As analysed in previous posts, it is functionally, very difficult, to legally comply with s1 of the Act, and, empower the vulnerable.

And this has not happened, as the Act is being used to remove all decisions from the vulnerable and their parents.

From this, we can only  conclude, the real reason for the Act,  was to enforce  private profit institutional  ‘care’ for life away from family and effectively any real community.

Such care, would have huge benefits, for  the government, and LAs.

The LA, gets the old, disabled, and vulnerable off their books, eradicating the need for adult care.

Social workers, are used as enforcers, and then, replaced by care managers, who merely oversee private provision they have commissioned and would be liable for if inadequate.

LA budgets, do not then, have to be used on continuing   home support.

Private profit care, benefits the government,   as,  public money,  available, to the disabled and their families, under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Act 1970, can instead be used by venture capitalists, and businesses, to make profit, from social care,  fuelling  economic growth.

LA budget cuts, purporting to reduce the UK deficit, actually increase it, by payment of huge sums to private care providers .

The market for such care, is  ever extended, now to those which learning disabilities, and behavioural problems, to maximise the potential consumer base.

Capacity/ability to make a decision is assessed routinely, and covertly.

The Care Act 2014, implemented last month, dilutes ‘capacity’, to ’substantial difficulty’ in being involved in decisions.

As   assessments   are   routine, they are  based on age, or label, and  therefore MCA illegal, but who, or, how, could anyone complain?

This approach is highly discriminatory, and, marginalises, and stigmatises   certain groups of people, by questioning their ‘decisions’, and, removing their right to make them.

The state can then enforce any care, and medication, they want.

For those living in residential care, rather than for emancipation, the MCA  is being used, to justify tick- boxed regulation, and unchecked, perfunctory at best, standards of ‘care’, and, defend practioners.

The Supreme Court   decision Cheshire West   [2014] UKSC 19, graphically illustrated, how functionally unworkable the   MCA is, in relation to the many deprivation of liberties, that take place daily, in private care.

And caused   a bureaucratic nightmare, which will do nothing to empower the vulnerable, but simply increases the box ticking of already overburdened, understaffed, underpaid care workers.

It has been translated operationally, to a Review of the Care Provision annually of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards with a Relevant Registered Person, who is generally not a family member but similar to an IMCA trained and appointed by a charity, but paid for by the state and the Adult Services. Most Care Providers have computer software to deal with the matter as part of their ‘best interests’ check list.

As,   with deprivation of liberties, any attempt to actually apply the Act, to the myriad of individual daily decisions, in residential care, as is required by the Act, would also be functionally impossible, particularly, in our, all for profit, zero hour care factories.

Usefully, the court practice is to remove a person’s capacity to make all future decisions, despite this being illegal under the MCA.

This assessment, to add weight to it will often be by a psychologist, pursuant to section 48 MCA.

But can be anyone.

And a s48 MCA application is granted to the LA on merely showing they suspect a person incapable.

The standard assessment order will decide, if a person has the capacity to litigate, make decisions as to where he lives, the care he receives, and the contact he has with members of his family

These are not decision specific,   and, other than for LA funding, often, need not be made, so  illegal under the MCA.

As mentioned in the post, ‘Standard Capacity Assessments Stephen Hawing would fail’, the standard LA assessment, is also apparently illegal.

And, does nothing to maximise capacity, other than tick a box on ease, comfort of circumstances, and, appears not to   encourage joint decision making.

We have no figures of how many, if any, pass the capacity test.

If an assessor, were to find a person   capable, he is proving his pay master LA, who suspected incapacity, and, applied to court, wrong.

The standard Record of Assessment,   will also certify, that a person, is unlikely to regain capacity, condemning him, to never, being allowed to make a decision again.

Providing  care providers, with a blanket incapacity assessment for all future decisions, again illegal.

Worse still, capacity, appears to be being equated with sentience.

As shown in Cheshire West judgement.

Where the court of appeal, and minority of the Supreme Court, held that a person can only be deprived of his liberty, if he has the capacity to understand and object to his situation, ie be aware of it.

Even Lady Hale eluded to ‘incapacity’, being equal to unawareness, by her words

An unconscious or sleeping person may not know that he has been locked in a cell, but he has still been deprived of his liberty.

A mentally disordered person who has been kept in a cupboard under the stairs (a not uncommon occurrence in days gone by) may not appreciate that there is any alternative way to live, but he has still been deprived of his liberty’.

Care workers are encouraged to believe, these very vulnerable scared lonely people with communication issues are actually incapable of any awareness or feeling.

As a support worker, horrifyingly  remarked to me ,

‘Would Issy know what was happening, if 5 strangers removed her from home ?’

The state is now allowed by the subversion  of the MCA, to create  the perfect commodities.

And,  the perfect   victims.insentient

 

The Mental Capacity Act, can make anyone, a prisoner of the state.

cropped-big-brother-is-watching-1984_jpg

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 not only qualifies, as the most socially draconian Act in modern history but also created its own court.

Why?

To purportedly protect the rights of the vulnerable.

A surprisingly laudable reason for a government.

Particularly, with no media pressure,  scandals, petitions, or campaigns that  warranted any legislation, let alone such a monster of oppression.

Whilst now 8 years  on,  there is huge pressure, and  urgent need to protect our vulnerable from the State care deemed in their best interests by the MCA,—– a plethora of  scandals, Winterbourne, statistics that 3 learning disabled, die needlessly per day and concerned relatives, if not  excluded, resorting to spy cameras.

If this Act were about protection it is a catastrophic failure.

So, why was the cost and time of this Act, thought so necessary, it was pursued for years  and implemented subject to review, despite two years of House of Lords objections?

And why did its need ignore the fact that  the inherent High Court jurisdiction with already, Enduring  Powers of Attorneys, the doctrine of necessity and The Office of Public Guardian had already  adequately protected the vulnerable,  for centuries.

And still do in the rest of the world but the UK.

Far from protecting the vulnerable, the Act has served to encage them, and make them, far more vulnerable and more crucially a source of private profit.

So what were, the purported reasons for  the Act ?

Amazingly,  little.

Government concern, that due to the ‘unstructured’ nature of  protection, decisions vulnerable people could make for themselves were being  made by others.

And, if   a person became  incapable of making a decision,  others should be prevented from making this decisions without the vulnerable’s, considerable involvement.

The fact that today,  such an implausible respect for an individual’s autonomy, has through the subversive implementation of the Act resulted, in the total removal of a vulnerable person’s autonomy, sadly, reveals the government’s real agenda.

The very concerns, the government sought to remedy, are now given flesh, by the Act.

It  is being used, not only, not to involve vulnerable in decisions  concerning them, but it also, allows LAs/ care providers, to make all the vulnerable’s decisions for life.

Incapacity, is needed for the jurisdiction of the Court of Protection.

It is the gateway, to an individual’s  every future decision being made by the state.

Allowing a vulnerable adult, unlucky enough to need  ‘support DEEMED INCAPABLE.’to be made a captive consumer of any state care, without reprieve, escape or complaint.

A person’s worst nightmare.

Every decision made for you, by strangers, whose overriding interest is profit .

And, the MCA, WAS deliberately drafted, to allow potentially, anyone’s, decisions to be made for them.

As MCA provides, any state agent, care/support worker, social worker, nurse, GP, psychologist, counsellor, alzeimer friend, even neighbour, can assess whether an individual is ‘capable’ of making a decision.

If  A PERSON appears, to them, to be mentally ‘impaired’, as a result of a non exhaustive, all embracing list- learning disability, mental health problem, brain injury, dementia, alcohol or drug misuse, effects of treatment/medication or in fact any other illness or disability.

Not only is the list of ‘assessors’ effectively anyone,

the reasons for  ‘incapacity’ is limitless.

Already, psychiatry/mental health is farcically extensive the USA, having created  375 mental disorders, diagnosed on a symptoms based subjective basis.

How vague, and subjective are these extensive impairments ‘learning disability’, ‘any other illness’ and the ‘side effects of medication’ ?

The Act  has been drafted to allow anyone, who comes into contact with a member of the public,  to assess them as incapable of making decisions.

Beyond terrifying, and amazing is the  power, it gives the state and their informers.

The ability to remove anyone’s autonomy by stealth and deem them a non person.

See latest rulings from Mr Justice Charles on Deprivation of Liberty Orders

http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/news/press-releases/ruling-highlights-rights-of-vulnerable-people-in-deprivation-of-liberty-hearings/

Worse than  Orwell’s ‘1984’ monitors.

The state ‘us’ is given the right to assess the ‘them’; without the ‘them’ even knowing,  and the ‘them’ are not even given the right to challenge the assessment.

And the courts, then remove all a person’s decision making rights, by illegal, blanket, general assessments, in a secret court.

The Act is not  protecting our ‘vulnerables’ rights but  removing them.

For NHS/LA private profit.

And, as the state decides, who is ‘vulnerable’  and it could be you.

 

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.

4

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.article-1392892-0C588EA900000578-684_468x286

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.

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

ghost

Friday 6th 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.

Issy  in nursery

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’.

memespp

But not if you are autistic.

Danger of EHCSs, and, Abuse of MCA Capacity for Adult Service Funding

blog-pictureSo let us explore, what appears, to be the Local Authorities practice, in relation to capacity assessments, since, the lucrative, ‘independent/community living’, away from family living industry was created.

Anyone, suspected of ‘incapacity’, all autistic, learning disabled, and, mentally disordered.

Including, potentially, anyone in need of ‘special’ education.

Funded under Education, Health, and Care statements.

Which unlike SEN, make the social services responsible for ‘protecting’ a child’s ‘welfare’.

So now, all ‘special needs’ children, are deemed  in need of the protection.

Discriminatory of parents and children,in breach of the Equality Act, and,s 8 Human Rights Act.

Strengthening a disabled’s  status, as a ‘child in need’, under the Children Act, see my article NLJ ‘The Disability Trap’.

EHCS,  also allow care, health, and educations distinct roles to overlap.

And,  their funding to be mixed and transparency even more obscured..

SEN/EHCS, do not apply to private schools.

So, the rich, can avoid, state intervention, and, are, allowed, their legal rights.

ECHS, do not fund schools after 16.

Instead, schools are replaced, by ad hoc education packages,consisting of skills for independent living, until 25..

These, combine support  at home.

And, these ‘education’ providers, unknown a family, will be charged  to notify social services, who approve them, of any ‘intervention issues’.

At 18, Adult Services fund everything.

As, the only  LA policy now, is life in  for profit, private residential care units.

All decisions are removed from the disabled, and their family by the MCA 05.

By showing  ‘incapacity’ to make  decisions.

So, the LA will insist,  a capacity test is carried out, before, providing any adult services.

So social services, will suggest, your young adult child see a psychologist.

This ‘seeing’ includes a capacity test, but, you are unlikely to be made aware of this and there appears, no duty on the local authority to inform you.

It can also provide, evidence of emotional abuse/neglect, to cut you out of your child’s life.

If you  ask for clarification of such assessments, and/or feel them unnecessary, the Local Authority, will apply to the Court of Protection, for an interim order under s 48 Mental Capacity Act 2005.

This application will be served, 24 hours before the court hearing.

Social services witness statements, in support, are not on oath, so not subject to the Perjury Act.

Matters to support this court intervention, can include any reported hearsay, from any source, care workers, GP, educators etc.

The first you may  know  of these ‘concerns’, will be 24 hours before the hearing.

No one is under a duty to discuss  concerns with you first and under a tightly prescribed, managed service will be told not to..

Despite Social Workers and Mental Capacity Act Codes of Conduct, and, the Human Rights Act.

The Local Authority will ask  the court for a list of expansive orders.

Including, any assessment and/or inspection, they wish.

If you do not agree, you may be warned your child could be taken that night.

So, you are given little choice.

This,  is all an abuse of the MCA, and its five overarching principles, and its Code of Conduct.

The MCA provides, ‘capacity’, must be assessed specifically, in terms of capacity to make a particular decision, at the time it needs to be made.

The LA,  will allege incapacity, in respect to the following decisions,

To litigate the proceedings

To make decisions about where they should live

To make decisions about the care they receive

To make decisions about the contact they receive from family members.

Clearly, only the first two, are in fact particular decisions, the others involve several particular decisions, should they have a bath, wash hair, brush teeth, depilate their arm pits etc.

Similarly, family members, are many decisions, to see mother, father, sister, brother, granny.

Remember the MCA provides an assessment should only take place,

‘At the time it (the decision) needs to be made’

But these decisions do not need to be made, at this, particular time.

Just because a person is 18, and now funded by adult services, a capacity test per se, is not allowed by MCA.

In relation, to the last three decisions, the disabled person, will have been making these decisions, all their life, whether to have a bath, sleep in thier home,  see their granny.

How can they suddenly become incapable of making these decisions, and, the LA make them for them for them, under the MCA?

How can an assessment be justified, when these disabled, have already made these decisions in the past.

And by making them, shown their ‘capacity’ to make them, just because LA funding, requires it?

In relation, to the remaining decision, capacity to litigate, no one, unversed in law, would have such capacity, and, in any event, it is not be necessary, if the other capacities  are present.

The MCA, was not drafted for the convenience of funding, only, independent living provision at 18, and enabling this by illegal removal from the family home.

The MCA was drafted, to protect a person, by allowing another person, to make a decision for them, in  the least restrictive way, and, as they thought, that person, would have made it, in that person’s best interests, if thought, that person, had become in capable of making that particular decision, and, it needed, to be made.

The MCA, was not drafted, to declare people ‘incapable’, and, allow all their future decisions to be made for them, for profit.

Or was it ?

Illegal MCA and Capacity Tests, and Lucrative Vegetables.

quote-god-has-so-framed-us-as-to-make-freedom-of-choice-and-action-the-very-basis-of-all-moral-william-mathews-371165

The Mental Capacity Act was drafted to protect and empower.

Instead, it is illegally being used to remove all the rights of the deemed ‘incapable’.

To obtain a capacity order, all a Legal Authority needs is a box ticked by anyone, normally a GP,  that they ‘suspect’ a person, incapable.

Effectively, in their opinion, unable to retain information.

So beware of the Alzheimer tests, GPs are now paid, to provide.

Yet, if a person is autistic,  the assessor likely to be GP and/or social worker will only have physically examined, or seen the autistic, have no knowledge of autism and have based their opinion on a  discriminatory  view, of the autistic’s appearance and condition, such an assessment illegal under the MCA.

So much for the National Autistic campaigns and expensive education.

To say nothing, of all our high flown rhetoric, on diversity and equality.

The Court of Protection, on the basis of this perfunctory over sight, will then issue a  48 MCA capacity order without sight of the autistic, or information from those, he has lived with all his life.

This order will be enforced on an interim basis on threat of removal of the alleged incapable despite this being illegal under the MCA, which only has jurisdiction, if a person is incapacitated.

A psychiatrist, or more likely a psychologist,titles matter, will perform another standard tick box test, family might be consulted, but will not take part in the decision making process, despite assisting, and witnessing their child make such decisions, all their life.

Unlike his family, the ‘experts’, will not have seen, the soon to be incapacitated, before the assessment day, and, will know little of the autistic mind, or even, autism.

Actions of the autistic in the past, that show ability to want, and be able, to make decisions, like living at home, will be ignored.

We have no statistics, of how many, if any, manage to pass the test.

Assessors,are paid, chosen, and remitted by the Local Authority, who now, only provide adult services for those in, or destined for, independent living, where the maximum profit can be made, from them.

A clear conflict of interests.

If the LA fail to find an assessor, the official solicitor will then find one, and deem it even more credible, as independent.

Once tick boxed, ‘incapable’.

You’re loving, full of personality and fun son, daughter or granny, becomes a non-person.

A vegetable.

Non sentient.

Incapable, in law, of even being aware of what is happening to them.

Incapable of remembering, anything.

The perfect victim.

But capable of making millions for their encaging private corporations.

Lady Hale, chillingly alluded to this, when she said, just because a person cannot appreciate, they are living in a cupboard, does not mean, it is not a deprivation of liberty.

But can a court remove all a disabled persons rights?

Yes.

Is this, not the worst form, of disability discrimination?

Yes.

Is it not in breach of the person’s Magna Carta right not to lose his liberty except by trial by his peers?

Yes.

The Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Art 12 provides, that states party to it, UK is, should replace legislation that provides for substitute decision-making for incapacitated adults based on, ‘what is believed to be in the objective ‘best interests’ of the person concerned, as opposed to being based, on the person’s own will, and preference.

The government has so far done nothing, to repeal the MCA, but, the Court of Appeal has endorsed the Article, as having persuasive authority, as an aid to interpretation of it.

A study of the implementation of article 12 on the decisions of the learning disabled which usually includes the autistic shows it is not being implemented in UK in health or care settings.

Instead, substitute decision making takes http://www.publichealthreviews.eu/upload/pdf_files/12/00_Werner_S.pdf place.

http://www.publichealthreviews.eu/upload/pdf_files/12/00_Werner_S.pdf place.

And even without considering  Article 12, particular weight, must be placed, upon the incapacitated wishes and feelings, in determining where their best interests may lie, Peter Jackson J  Re M (Best Interests: deprivation of liberty order [2013] EWHC 3456 (COP).

So why is it happening to millions?

Profit.

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA Is this the photo of a vegetable ? Does she look non sentient?

Corruption, and abuse of Autistics for Profit

This is a tale of two young autistics in Sheffield.

One living at home with loving parents

100_00373186340_1423132249_7764_updates

The other ripped from his parents, to face abuse, alone, and isolated,

in independent living.

961611_10153800928906002_1927464821_n

And to die, of unexplained injuries, and a heart attack, after huge doses of anti-psychotic drugs, were pumped into him,in a private cAmbian  owned community living placement, charging  at least £6,500 per week.

This is a tale of evil, and corruption.

Of  profits, for a privatised NHS, and, independent living providers.

Of colluding  courts, and Local Authorities.

This is a tale of me, a mother, sick with worry.

And another mother, who had warned, they would kill her son, with their ‘treatment’, but they continued, gagged her with a court order and he died two weeks later.

Thomas Rawnsley, was transferred, via a deprivation of liberty order, granted by the Court of Protection, under the Mental Capacity Act, against his parents wishes, from his home in Bradford, to a hospital in Peterborough, and then, to a privately run, ‘independent’/ supported living facility in Sheffield.

His loving mother was replaced by itinerant carers.

One of whom, a large man, would kick him into his room,

and, regularly threaten, ‘How many fingers can I break this time ?’, and then bend Thomas’ fingers back, but they did not break, only because, Thomas was double jointed.

Thankfully for Thomas, there was a witness, prepared to risk all to whistle blow.

How much violence, and, verbal abuse goes unseen, ignored, or blamed on self harm, or mental illness ?

Thomas’ ‘carer’, received a suspended prison sentence in February 2014.

Despite this desperately traumatic abuse, Thomas was not returned to the love, and care of his parents, and familiarly of this friends, and community.

But forced to remain, in the same independent living unit, as Thomas was earning more than £6,000 a week.

Understandably,Thomas’ trauma, and unhappiness, made him difficult to care for.

And, his carers warned him, that he was, ‘Acting out, and they had medications for that.’

See, the Justice For Thomas Post reblogged later. Now disappeared.

The independent living provider now also owned by Cambian sent  Thomas, to an A T Unit for his ‘medication’.

Fortuitously, for this new ATU, as it had been threatened with closure, and, for a long time, Thomas was its only patient.

This appears to be the same group of  multimillion pound assessment centres, build on the back of my daughters illegal, off label Risperidone trial in 2007, when our complaint to CAMHS,  lead to the LA taking court proceedings against us.

It is where, her National Autistic Society wanted to send Issy in 2013, just before she, refused to return to their care, with a faecal impaction, 7 stone in weight, with 2 rotten teeth, and suffering PTSD from their carers abuse.

The only ‘treatment’ in these centres, is high dosage antipsychotics.

No dentist, no clearing out of impaction, no peace with her family to get over her PTSD, just more emotional abuse.

It is also where Issy would be sent if there had ever been any violent/uncontrollable incidents. See my post Respite and the secret social worker.

They promised Thomas, he could go home for Christmas.

At the last minute, permission was withdrawn on the grounds, he would not want to return, and, his subsequent behaviour,might be difficult.

So much for disabled person’s  independent autonomy, human rights, and best interests.

And the mockery of his supposed ‘independent’ living as an adult.

The Unit only eventually agreed to let Thomas go home, after realising he knew about the trip, and someone would have to tell him it was off.

Thomas’ poor mother described him in the ATUnit;

He can’t eat, he can’t talk – he just dribbles. He’s been turned into a junkie; he’s addicted to his anti-psychotic drugs because he’s kept on the maximum dose to make it easier for them to cope. It breaks my heart. He sits naked in a corridor just wrapped in a quilt. He has no modesty or dignity in there. He is my beautiful, beautiful little boy. When I ask the unit why he’s left naked like that they tell me it’s what he wants. I ask them lots of questions, I don’t get real answers. I think they see me as a trouble-maker but I’m not, I’m Thomas’s mum.

Thomas in ATU on medication .

Thomas in ATU on medication .

http://www.blogistan.co.uk/blog/mt.php/2015/02/03/thomas-rawnsley-abuse-separation-unexplained-injuries-heart-attack

On the very day Thomas lay dying,a few miles away, social workers,  sat in my kitchen, inspecting clothes, already photographed by teacher/care workers. a day after the hearing of the LA’s mca application to remove my daughter to the same home Kingdom House where Thomas had  effectively died.

and the LA Service Manager, AFTER we complained held meetings on her ‘concern’, that she had seen Issy, naked in the kitchen, on the way to her bath.

No one saw, or cared, about Thomas’ abuse, this was the ATU’s purpose, he was keeping it open, making huge profits for its corporate owners.

Thomas was earning £6,500 ( and drugs and kickbacks ) per week, for our privatised NHS ie Cambian Group.

So much for budget restrictions, these on only placed on support at home.

They are the excuse, for enforced away from home living and big bucks for the privatised monopoly ‘care’ services, from central government.

The weekend before Thomas died, his parents noticed ‘unexplained injuries’, including carpet burns, and he was ‘’struggling with a chest infection that they knew was serious’.

There is little medical attention in COMMUNITY LIVING, as in Issy’s  £9,000 per week National Autistic School.

He collapsed, and died shortly afterwards of a massive heart attack.

He was just 20.

And had spent the last two years of his life in hell.

Will there be an inquest?

Unlikely, and if there is, all experts, providers,  have financial/career/systemic interests in covering up the truth, and continuing their income and investment source.

Will the Unit be closed down now, as it is at present under used, and serves no purpose, but to torture, and drug those who cause any problems, to their itinerant carers, in their 3,000 per week independence.?

Not, if the state, can steal more autistics from loving families.

Thomas. collapsed, and became brain dead on the 3rd February 2015.

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

Education Report, ‘A Red Mark The Size of a Fist’

4508491-Small-and-powerful-fist-on-a-white-background-Stock-PhotoIt is Thursday 29/1/2014.

What a long, long, week.

As if being up at nights for months, with no personal care, or respite for over 2 years wasn’t enough.

I am now being tortured by the social services.

The snow is thick, my husband had to take the bus to work.

Issy was up at 11.00am, and eventually after much effort in the bath.

And, I managed to get photos of her stomach..

It would appear, all those in need of support, are at the mercy, of any itinerant, zero hour, or, unpaid placement stranger,apparently, desperate, to do the State’s dirty work.

A friend in London told me, carers in care homes, demand ‘protection money’, from relatives.

What a disgusting moral compass is now the norm.

The snow has conspired, to make even walks down the drive scary, Issy doesn’t like slippyness.

Just before noon, the ‘funding lady’, our social workers manger’s manager rang me.

The last thing my psyche needed after Issy’s bath at a moment when she was demanding never ending juice and I was alone.

With the usual infuriating, social worker prescribed conversation,

How are things?’.

You surely must know how things are’. I replied.

You will know more than me, about what’s happening’.

The nice affable lady, did not turn up on Tuesday two days ago, and the Lodge Lady hasn’t today’.

‘We received no prior, or post notification, or indeed, any communication from anyone.’

Except from our adult social services social worker, and GP, demanding to see a non- existent lump on Issy’s tummy’.

This is the ‘intensive, specialist, highly expensive service’, provided to an autistic girl, not yet out of the trauma, the state, for the second time, threw her in’.

The funding lady, then tells me, I have ‘strong opinions’, and, the workers had not felt ‘comfortable’ in the house.

I countered.

They had not mentioned or looked as if they were ‘uncomfortable’.

Let alone why .

Its non- stop coffee, tea and chats, magazines, and two books on autism lent, and, never  returned.

And, they do what they want with Issy.

I have spent the last two years, having all my cupboards rearranged, without asking, and my washing machine broken.

Being a complete tit, I have given away dresses, shoes, coats, tops, CD radios, face creams, shears, masses of legal advice etc. mainly to the lady, who had the first hissy fit.

10 Nintendo games to another worker who befriended Issy, groomed me, and after an outing with him, Issy  repeatedly asked,’ Why do men like having willies up their arse?’.

He was never seen again, as not offered ‘education’ work, (more money and security).

Poor Issy has been so let down, by the itinerancy of workers, but, her fate would be much worse in ‘independent’ living.

And,Lodge Lady ( the latest since November education support worker), had arrived daily, with a Private Eye, or, internet article, or, own experience of a care scandal, to elicit/encourage my ‘strong opinions’.

I remind the funding lady,

‘as zero hour workers, every worker can be specifically chosen, and prescribed’.

She retorts, ‘they are all individuals’.

So the inference is  the 30 +  previous agency workers,  must all have felt ‘uncomfortable’…. For 18 months…. but this, was the first I’d heard of it.

She tells me the affable, independent of the state, with a conscience lady, does not want to support Issy anymore.

So why did she choose Monday, without  warning to leave ?

Why did she make me chutney and chat so freely never mentioning her ‘uncomfortability’.?

It was a  loss,  as she loved the autistic, and Issy liked her.

But she had said ominously, she, ‘had nothing to do, with ‘education’’.

Now, we know why.

I assume, she didn’t want to get involved in their dirty tricks, of the lucrative, independent of family living, industry.

I noticed the nice  workers disappeared.

One, had a two week mystery illness, just when the trainee and social workers, were moving in for the kill, but, had a hissy fit, never to return.

I suspect, their reputable international agency, were worried about bad PR, from this blog.

Their head office, monitors the net, and had picked up my mention of their name, as a zero hour employer, in a Guardian comment, and, had banned me, from naming them on social media.

Such is the self- preservation, of our all-powerful, privatised monopolies.

The funding lady asked, if I  would consider, having Lodge Lady, and a new worker.

I told her to read my blog, and then objectively decide, whether, she would.

She replied she didn’t read blogs.

Issy was demanding juice, the bath was run….  I did not need this.

I mentioned all this.

Which she must have already been aware of from Issy’s shouts.

Eventually, I forced an exit.

But the phone rang 20 minutes later.

She had read my blog.

And  some points were incorrect.

It was not the Adult Social Worker, who had rung the GP, but her.

So much, then for her asking last week, what she could do, to rebuild my trust in the social services.

But, did not explain why the GP, had given the social workers name.

Nor why, the same social worker, rang us earlier reporting the lump.

Nor, why  this was so important.

Secondly, she said the blog incorrectly stated the support worker, had not discussed her concern, when she had.

I said, read the blog again.

The worker had pointed  out a non-existent bulge.

And then, when I, and the affable lady, had said it was pre period swelling, had said no more about it during the 4 hours that remained of her shift.

She had not pointed out,‘ a red mark, the size of a fist’ as was reported to the GP.

I couldn’t bear this  cross examining sophistry any longer.

And Issy needed attention.

Why was no one concerned about her ?

‘For the mother of God’, I cried.

And Issy on cue, decided the phone had to go back in its place, and grabbed it.

That night, I reflected, on what the GP had actually, been told.

I had been distracted by the impaction discussion, and the bulge comment.

I  analysed the reported ‘concern’,

‘A red mark on the side of Issy’s tummy, the size of a small fist’.

I realised, it  wasn’t  describing a bulge,

It  painted, a shocking picture, of abuse.

It could not be accidental, self-harm, or, neglect.

It was on  soft tissue.

It could only be…………… a punch.

And, as small, my fist,  as the primary carer, and most alone with Issy.

Wow…..

How might this be made to appear in court documents;

An education worker, who had formed a good relationship with Issy over several weeks of support, and, had just managed to get her out of the house for the first time in 9 months, noticed a red, fist sized mark on the side of Isabel’s stomach.

She pointed it out to her mother, who ignored her.

So she reported it to the social services, who rang the parents, but they would not let them see Isabel, so they rang the GP, but the parents also refused the GP’s request to come to their home and examine her.

The GP, now very concerned for Isabel’s safety, arrived at their home, he was verbally attacked by the mother, didn’t manage to  examine Isabel, as she refused to undress, or cooperate.  (but did see her running around happy not in pain).

The mother then refused any more support, or engagement with the social services’.

I had walked right into that one…..

If I did nothing, as photos can be air brushed, this would be taken, as irrefutable evidence of a vicious assault.

And we would be cut out of Issy’s life for ever.

The LA would have their £6,000 +a week, cash and pharma cashcow, the Lodge Lady a career path, a loving devoted mother  destroyed, and a father heartbroken, never to see their child again unsupervised.

And Issy doomed to live in an abusive hell, alone.

Such is evil.

Such is morality.

Such is adult state protection costing millions

And  the danger of care/education workers.

I rang the GP, apologised, and, asked him round to try to re -examine Issy…..

He arrived but did not touch her stomach only viewed for marks

Yet recorded later in Issy’s medical notes that there was no hot bulge on her stomach.

Summary

Education workers mentions Issy’s stomach bulges on one side

other workers agrees with me that due to her due period.

Not mentioned again by Education Worker to me during rest of her shift

Education Worker notifies social worker ‘Issy has red mark size of small fist on her stomach’

SW rings GP attends , observes Issy’s stomach but does not touch her.

Yet records in notes hot bulge at side of stomach with no explanation/follow up

Neither worker is ever seen again.

The Vultures are circling

birds-circling

The GP rang last Friday.

The apparent, tasked linchpin, of the intervention team.

The one who took notes.

And wrote letters to me, about my reported cough.

Insisted, I had diabetes, and, met with social services behind my back.

As Issy, had no signs of any physical illness, and 7 requested GP visits in May and June had achieved nothing, there seemed, little point in having GPs in the kitchen.

Bizarrely, no ‘ professional’, or support worker had even enquired into Isabel’s health,

let alone, suggested, we rang the GP.

I used to wonder why, but not anymore.

Parental concern, was in our favour.

Not providing, ‘prompt medical attention’, is evidence of neglect.

The last time, the linchpin GP rang, was in response to our out of hours call re Issy’s ‘tummy bug’, six months ago.

He had told me, a lady GP would visit.

All she had done, was to  ask,if we had a scales, to keep a record, of an over 10 stone, 5ft 6 inch girl’s weight.

And peer intently into my face,  I assume for signs of mental distress.

During his phone call, he did not enquire into Issy’s health, but  mine.

Forgetting, his original concern about my ’ persistent cough’ , but not my diabetes.

Informing me, despite two acceptable tests, that my blood sugar level was now ‘substantially’ raised, and probably the reason  I  had felt  ill,  a year earlier, on my last GP  visit, despite my symptoms,  post  glandular fever fatigue and ME tests.

I am now, without evidence, or notification, registered as a ‘diabetic’, and, receive appointments for NHS eye tests.

The fact, I have no raised blood sugar, or symptoms,- thirst, dizziness, eye strain,  appears irrelevant.

His phone call,  informed me, the adult services social worker, was concerned, as workers had reported,  Issy was losing weight, and, he wanted to see her on Monday. It was Friday.

Strange, as the adult services social worker’s many ‘domained’ assessment form in May, did not include health.

Her role in mine,and Issy’s life was unknown, but, obviously  powerful, and omniscient.

Strange too, only a week earlier, when the social worker, rang, ‘to see how things were’.

In her first contact for four months, she had not mentioned this concern about Isssy’s weight.

And, neither had, the support workers to me.

Incandescent, I raved….

‘When Issy, had had a faecal impaction, dropped from 11 to 7 stone, in her National Autistic Society home, we had tried unsuccessfully, for over a year, through safeguarding officers, independent reviewing officers, NAS workers, but could not get a GP, to even  visit her, once.

Even when it was actioned, in a safeguarding meeting in May 2011.

But now, a GP was prepared to make a home visit, on the hearsay of a worker, of loss of weight?

Why, and, what purpose could his visit serve?’

But as usual, I was talking to an assertive robot.

I asked how he would feel, if it were his daughter.

His over long silence, hopefully, spoke for him.

I pleaded the right to autonomy, normally, afforded patients.

Isabel had capacity, and, we had already sought over 7 home visits in May and June, asked for blood tests, which we hadn’t got, and, a urine test, so were, more than  capable, of seeking medical attention.

He made no comment.

I asked him to write a letter, giving specifics of his concerns, where they had come from, and, the purpose of his visit.

His letter arrived stating only, that he wanted to attempt to weigh Issy.

Were we not capable of that ?

On Monday, the social worker emailed, saying adult services manager, needed to update her assessment, but not why, or, in what respect.

They both, wanted to call at 4.00 the next day.

She, also said the NHS, had to do a funding health assessment of Issy.

Funding for what ?

Why was NHS funding needed now ?

Issy, had not received such funding since NAS residential who had paid £60.000 per year towards her residential school up to 24/5 2013 although she had left on 29/1/2013..

Our only ‘support’, was an education package.

The vultures were circling.

Issy’s potential as a cash cow was huge.

The boxes, must be ticked.

For ‘independent’, £8,000 per week, away from home encagement.

How easily these people get their money, from  vulnerable, voiceless commodities.

Yet the disabled family get £62 per week for 24/7 care and the disabled £105.