A Surprisingly Good Visit from NHS Mental Health

IMG_0391This 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?

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 ?

The Age of The Scavenger.

Z9320472-Scavengers_on_a_carcass-SPL

We live in the age of the scavenger.

Frightened, greedy, insecure, in debt.

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/video/uk-personal-debt-almost-equivalent-to-2012-gdp/vi-BBssmxO?ocid=spartandhp

You, your children, partner, parents, its prey.

And, you will be powerless.

Here, is how they do it.

Scavengers know, that control, secrecy, surveillance and connection are essential.

They are smiling, plausible, psychopathological shape-shifters.

They work through social workers,  GPs, hospitals, police stations, health visitors, counsellors, neighbours, teachers, protection officers, care agencies, community groups, charities.

Through secret networkers and leadership.- common purpose.

All are  controlled by the state, work in secret and illegally share all ‘information’ through Multi Agency Safeguarding Hubs, agencies and community action groups.

Even our most trusted charity The Samaritans, is now controlled by the state, and details of the desperate  revealed to the authorities for forced lucrative private mental services interventions.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/01/fears-move-samaritans-pass-details-vulnerable-cases/

Even our suspicious, isolated, secretive, scared public, are social wardens.

Seeking state approval, money and power.

And many volunteer in NHS, police, schools,  community care desperate to please for employment.

The targets, as with all vultures are the vulnerable in need.

The poor, sick, old, disordered.

And, scavengers,  need to continually find new prey.

So they create vulnerability.

By 375 mental disorders, behavioural problems, increased poverty, more autistics, diabetics, and alzheimers.

And woo, through awareness campaigns, prevention,health checks, counselling, kindness, social groups, and, concern.

They target, objectifise, and subject their prey to the most solicitous, form of covert surveillance.

With 6 million itinerant carers, data bases, centralised medical, MASH, education, and social records .

Fishing expeditions are launched, to gain the ‘evidence’  they need.

This is build up on a  perfunctory, cumulative basis to fit the crime.

The crime, is always vague, expansive, and subjective.

And now even pre-emptive.

Those ‘at risk’ only targeted.

Neglect , controlling behaviour, emotional abuse,  sexual assault from innuendo, a drink is alcoholism, a scratch self-harm, forgetfulness incapacity,And any innocuous activity, is made to tick the box.

And, before you discover their surveillance, they use the law to swoop.

And then, it’s too late.

All they need now, is a rubber stamp.

All becomes unstoppable process.

Reality is suspended.

Mental Capacity Act interim  orders, will be the first you know, that you will lose your loved one.

Emergency protection care orders, your baby.

You will get no help.

All are frightened.

The system is inquisitorial, and so clogged up, and systemically bias it can do little.

Any allegation is accepted, without proof.

Justice, itself is  a scavenger,  it needs to be profitable.

The lawyers, scavenge the desperate, impotent, and ignorant.

And facilitate an inquisitorial process.

That cannot be beaten.

Those paid to protect the vulnerable, official solicitors, and CAFCASS officers, do the same.

They have no option, but to believe, the state always acts,  in a vulnerable person’s ‘best interests’.

Even though, that ‘best interest’, will make billions for the state.

The appalling conflict of interest, the elephant in the court room, is ignored.

All can act with impunity, as all is unaccountable, and in secret.

The commodity is adopted, the Local Authority pockets £30,000, and/or  £1000  per week for the fostering industry,£4,000  for the care home .

Those tick boxed ‘incapable’ imprisoned for life.

Every decision made for them by their private provider for ever more profit.

At the mercy of a secret, unaccountable care provider.

An audit statistic, worth on average  £3,500 per week.

In its first 3 years to 2010, the Court of Protection, took control, of assets worth over  £2.3 billion.

And, in its first 18 months received 3,000 complaints, all in secret.

Potentially, more than 2 million, could lose their liberty under the Mental Capacity Act.

Without their Magna Carta right to be tried by their peers.

Dementia, Carers Act, the latest facilitates to harvest.

GPs, now paid to assess dementia risk by stealth, on routine check ups.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3409468/How-medical-history-hold-key-dementia-risk.html

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/dementia-post-diagnostic-care-and-support.

And, the child care industry, has increased its numbers, from 32,000 in 2009, to 82,000.

Read this PhD on forced adoptions published in 2016 http://repository.essex.ac.uk/17072/1/Sam%20Davey%20Thesis%20Final%20Final.pdf

We do not know the numbers of old, autistic and learning disabled, encaged, unseen, in residential private profit ‘care’.

And at September 2016 The Alzheimer’s Society reported Deprivation of Liberty Orders from the Court of Protection are at an all time high.

https://www.alzheimers.org.uk/site/scripts/news_article.php?newsID=2665&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+org%2FdNPt+%28Alzheimer%27s+Society+%27Latest+News%27%29from the Court of Protection are at an all time high.

At September 2016 Altzeimer Society reported all time high in Deprivation of Liberty Orders

https://www.alzheimers.org.uk/site/scripts/news_article.php?newsID=2665&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+org%2FdNPt+%28Alzheimer%27s+Society+%27Latest+News%27%29

So, it certainly pays, to scavenge.
many stories since we can trust no one all are scavengers all act illegally as law can’t be enforced. we are not protected. we are in cowboy and indian land with no gun
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/exclusive-nhs-secretary-is-mistakenly-charged-£56000-for-£169-romantic-weekend-in-budapest-but-barclays-refuses-to-help-leaving-her-paralysed-with-debt/ar-AAH8QWM?ocid=spartandhp

I Smell a Rat……

the-procession-of-the-trojan-horse-in-troy-1773_jpgLarge-615x290

Angel Eyes is gone.

I smell a rat.

She said, she’d see me on Monday.

We’d had a great afternoon on Thursday, dying my hair.

But  her boss rang on Saturday.

Angel Eyes, couldn’t do anymore shifts, as she’d lose her tax credits .

Not even a single hour ?

Why then,was she the only worker offered.

When she and her boss arrived 5 days ago, in answer to my email?

And, why didn’t she/he, mention her tax credits, on offering her hours?

Or , she in  her long chats on Thursday.

More crucially, where do we go from here?

Only one other agency, got back.

And they too, could be nobbled.

I analyse, my conversations, with Angel Eyes.

She came on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday.

I recall, she only started asking  odd questions on Thursday.

Lodge/Fist lady, had done the same, despite my garrulous outpouring of Issy information.

At the time, they had irritated, and upset me.

She had opened her arms to offer a hug

I’d asked why the lists of questions, she’d said, she wasn’t good at conversations.

I’d felt guilty.

I now, reflect on Angel Eye’s questions.

I feel like Miss Marble.

And annoyed, I am forced to be so paranoid.

But this de facto beleaguerment, is worse than fiction.

Do you like a drink?’

‘Are you frightened of Issy ?

‘All this is bound to put a strain on your relationship (with Seamus)’.

How does Issy get on with her sister Eleanor, oh, I have already asked you that one’.

All innocuous enough.

But now, indicative of a fishing brief..

I  think of the many poor homes, unable to buy  arrays of cleaning products, without space, clothes, bedding, and healthy food,surrounded by neighbours too willing to spy.

They are sitting ducks.

So Angel Eye’s boss arrived last night, to finalise the ‘package’.

He is now our ‘Measured Lady’.

I ask why our pot of money, cannot be given to us, to find support.

He blinds me with science, and stonewalling.

How can this be personalised services?

He shows me the CV a lady, sent to him in November, and emphasises, she works ‘independently‘, for an old couple.

He arranges a visit .

As usual, more time is wasted on administration, and, needless introductions, than support.

He spouts the standard tripe, of needing to find someone, we are happy with.

But, as with Measured Lady, there is no other candidate.

I don’t know what to say.

There, are the usual awkward silences.

I explain my dilemma.

But, the elephant in the room is ignored.

The lady is coming tonight.

The social  workers tomorrow,

For their weekly ‘surveillance’, as the package boss calls it.

Nice life.

Issy sleeps, and is happy.

Apparently, largely irrelevant, but a good little earner.