Effect of the Connor Sparrowhawk Verdict and Puplic Accountability.

Audit checklist on a desk, with tick against audit satisfactory

Over the past 30 years, public health and welfare systems, have been honed to perfect unaccountability,   self- preservation, and risk aversion.

The total impossibility of even NHS complaints is illustrated here.   https://www.dropbox.com/s/xn3zf9epstwl9mh/The%20problem%20is%20the%20burden%20of%20proof.doc?dl=0

It has taken nearly three years, and over a million pounds, a public campaign, several published enquiries a coroner’s inquest, and a jury, to show it was negligent to allow an epileptic, autistic inpatient in an assessment centre to lie for hours unattended in  a bath. .

Connor’s family have effectively got no where in the fight for justice for their son and as can be seen her in his Mum’s blog are still waiting at 5th April 2016.

https://mail.google.com/mail/?tab=wm#inbox/153e2c1b7656bf3a

To decide, that allowing, a vulnerable epileptic man, to drown in his bath, was negligent.

And, it was revealed, that only 6 years earlier, another man had drowned mal- nourished in the same bath, in the same NHS adult treatment centre.

The only conclusion, that can be drawn from this, is, the NHS is publically unaccountable.

And, even when it is, the only sanction is a fine, payable, from public funds, and, resultant insolvency.

Following a pointless, expensive public enquiry. http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/feb/06/mid-staffs-hospital-scandal-guide

St Andrews Healthcare, and most Adult Treatment Units, are now run for private profit, but, paid out of the NHS public purse, and, as charities, pay no tax.

So no tax, no accountability, no service, and huge profit.

The perfect business model.

https://finolamoss.wordpress.com/2015/08/01/st-andrews-healthcares-recycled-income/

And, a similar story is true, now of most public services.

The Baby P scandal, illustrated, the lack of accountability, self-protection, and, inadequacy, of the now, effectively privatised child protection services.

What is their accountability, for the thousands of rapes of children over 15 years in Rotherham alone?

Or, the many illegal adoptions, that pocket adopting agencies, a minimum of £28,000 per child.

https://finolamoss.wordpress.com/2015/07/07/autistic-parents-have-no-rights-and-the-private-corporate-parent-is-unaccountable/

Mental health is now about creating, as profitable a market, as possible.

When did the learning disabled, autistic, epileptic, need to be institutionalised, and, medicated, at huge public expense, for life?

This is a gold mine, from which private equity is, literally, and, metaphorically, making a killing.

See the billions spent on mental health services in the past 5 years in England.

http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-question/Commons/2015-06-11/2174/

Throwing money at a service, without accountability, has shown not to work.

The forced, costly exposure of how Connor died, which, put his parents, through even more, unnecessary, excruciating hell, will justify further NHS privatisation.

And, be used, to move mental health care, to a local level, and utilise, the private Adult Treatment Units, holding units, and supported living, already in place.

Thomas Rawnsley, was the only occupant for a long time, in the ATU, which, effectively killed him.

Within these local provisions, accountability, is even more elusive.

As they are  policed, by the Mental Capacity Act, and, Court of Protection,

So, unlike   Connor’s NHS treatment, are in secret, and, for life.

And, therefore, the risk of abuse, and death, even greater.

As, are the profit making opportunities, for the outsourcers, venture capitalists, and their supporting industry

http://www.nationalhealthexecutive.com/Health-Care-News/mental-capacity-act-allows-draconian-and-secretive-decisions

LA Complaints Service Manager Meeting -Is the End Nigh ?

We lodged a formal complaint on the LA’s website in June.

Had two meetings, with our social worker, and, her boss.

The conclusion of which was a letter whitewashing our complaints.

I replied at length, and, asked for a stage 2 referral to the ‘independent’ investigator.

But, did not get to stage 2

Instead, in September, I received a letter from the LA  services manager,

‘I would like to take the opportunity to meet with you to discuss your complaint and to try and resolve any issues that you have’.

Two weeks ago, she arrived by black, soft- topped sports car, Porsche?, black be suited, in my kitchen.

We had managed to get Issy up, and almost in the bath, but the lady’s early arrival, spooked her, and, she retreated, naked, into her bedroom.

The lady began the meeting, by going through the complaints process,

despite my use of it, and, its presence on the internet.

And said, she had come,

to talk to some of our issues that we were still left with.’

We had been left, with all ‘ our issues’.

Physical, emotional abuse and neglect of Issy in her NAS School.

No support for the first 3 months on her returning home.

And then, no respite, no school, inadequate, spying support.

An ‘independent’ living ‘education’ package, that had traumatised Issy,

by telling her, she could not live with Mummy  and Daddy,

And resulted in her reignited PTSD, and refusal to leave the house.

My fabricated illnesses notified to GP by social services.

Incorrect, sexed up core assessments, portraying us, as abusive, neglectful, inadequate parents.

And, our support/education was now non-existent.

No support for over two months, and, an education package,6 months in the making,

Which had commenced two weeks ago, but only consisted of a PR, 2 days a week, who had hardly appeared.

The be suited lady announced, she was in our kitchen to see;

What can we do to reach a resolution?

What do you want as a good outcome from the complaints process?’ ‘What can I do to resolve your complaint ‘

‘What can we do as a service to make sure we can support you?’

Anything, as we had no support.

Surely, after nearly 2 years of meetings, core assessments, she should know what we want, and, what her services should have done, and, were now not doing ?

These, were thoughts only, as her out-pouring, was merely an explanation, of her function.

It was the usual, I speak, you speak, prescribed, communication.

But finally, the shocker,

‘I don’t know the detail. I have chosen not to look at the record’.

I felt, at this point, the need to point out, that this was a big mistake, if she, were here to investigate our complaints.

So dared to ask, Why  she had ‘chosen not to look at the record.

I wanted to come with an open agenda’.

I’ve come to listen to you as a couple, to be clear as to the outcome you want’.

After letters forms and two meetings she still did not know?

I have come to have a dialogue, with you before I can respond’.

She continued,

But a dialogue, is a two way process.

And, she had, ‘chosen not to look at the record’.

So how could her visit clarify, and resolve?

No, it was the usual.

We do all the talking. All is de novo.

All is futile.

We were expected to go through our complaints, together, with the latest ones.

All already gone through ad nauseam, with her subordinates, orally, and, in writing.

Our time, as always, wasted to justify ‘service’, and salaries.

Exasperated, we filled her in on our previous, and, only agency support,

but, trained to be ever positive, she interrupted with,
so the previous agency support worked well’.

Even our social worker, admitted, it was not ‘the most appropriate’, after Issy refused to go out.

This lady did not appear to know, it had broken down, or why,

or, even, that Issy no longer left the house with anyone.

But as per her two subordinates, in their complaints meetings,

She did know enough to suggest, ‘someone’, ‘do some work’ with Issy, to try to reassure her, she would return home, if she went out.

And, as we had already told her subordinates, obviously, this had been done by ourselves, and, several, different workers.

The team leader, in her complaints meeting, had remained silent, on the qualifications of this ‘someone’.

But our social worker had let slip, it was a psychologist.

Could this be the last piece of documentation, they needed for a deprivation of liberty order, to remove Issy from home?

When we pointed out, Issy had been traumatised, by the push into independent living.

She said,

‘So, you as parents, are now saying, at this moment in time, you don’t want her in independent living’.

It appeared, even ours, and Issy’s basic wishes, were unknown to her.

Or more likely, irrelevant.

What can I do in terms of the complaint investigation?

Continued, her rhetorical plea.

Investigate, one would assume.

After an hour of this, Issy emerged from her bedroom, opposite the kitchen, naked.

She spotted my coffee, through the kitchen glass door, came in, drank it, and retreated.

The lady asked,

Does Issy struggle to wear her clothes?’.

More exasperation.

‘No. She was just going into her bath when you arrived.’

As with the trainee social worker, a little knowledge of ‘autism’, did not go a long way.

She assumed autistics, and therefore Issy, had problems keeping their clothes on.

I explained, as I had done, on countless occasions, her bath time routine, and that she dressed herself afterwards.

But knew this was futile.

She had spotted, what she was looking for, an intervention issue.

Issy didn’t keep her clothes on, and we allowed it.

Just as her scratches, had been self-harm, or abuse, to the education funding lady.

The lady then left, saying she would respond in writing.

She did a week later, but not about our complaints, that letter, has yet, to arrive.

‘I do feel I need to raise again the issues that led to me ending our meeting earlier than anticipated, (it hadn’t) namely the fact that Isabel did come into the kitchen naked and your response to me when I asked the question if this was normal behaviour for Isabel (it wasn’t, she was getting in the bath), and if she struggled to remain clothed. I asked this question as I am aware of many young people with autism do have difficulty in wearing certain items of clothing. My question was not intended to be a criticism of your parenting, However it did concern me that neither parent attempted to encourage Isabel to dress, given there was a complete stranger in the home who had not met Isabel before and the potential impact of this upon her dignity’.

So, the LA Services Manager, charged with investigating our formal complaints, that social services, were deliberately creating evidence of abusive, and, inadequate parenting.

Had decided, our not encouraging, our autistic, upset daughter to dress, before she got into her bath, was evidence of emotional abuse, and, a protection issue.

And, the much pushed ‘work to be done on Issy’, to supposedly, get her out, was now to be enforced;

‘ I believe we need an urgent assessment of Isabel’s mental health to assist the LA in determining the best support package for Isabel and I have requested the Social Workers involved with Isabel discuss this in more detail with you so we can work together to achieve this.’

Confirming my suspicions, that the LA, were determined to assess Issy’s ‘capacity’,  which as, with our adult services assessment, and her NHS funding, was to be obtained by stealth, on a different pretext.

As, what other purpose could this ‘assessment’ serve?

Our social worker, could not find a care agency willing to support us.

So what ‘care package’, could this assessment lead to?

Only independent living, or, a mental hospital, or ATU.

A psychologist, and a psychiatrists assessments in 2012, when Issy was 7 stone, poo impacted, with two rotten teeth in her NAS school, had merely resulted in antidepressants, which made her worse.

And what would happen, if we did not allow such an ‘assessment’?

The letter continued;

’ Given the difficulties of our meeting (we were concerned that she knew nothing about our complaints, or are present lack of support, and had a naked daughter about to bathe).I would want to re-iterate that the LA are committed to working in partnership with parents and carers and our current intervention with your family is to provide appropriate support to maintain Isabel in your care, unfortunately this does not to be your beliefs are around our intervention. I would want to stress that the LA would only consider looking at a placement for a young person away from their family home if there is concern for that young person’s welfare and if parental engagement cannot be maintained.’

Plenty of choice there then….

This was a simple process, which would be completed.

Even if, it was, by the person charged with investigating our complaints.

Poor Issy, poor us.

Another photo, on yet another petition, never to laugh, or be free again, a tortured, captive cash, and pharma cow, with tortured, powerless parents.

Doomed to living hells for life.

But, what profit she would make, at least £3,500 per week, without the pharma, and therapy kickbacks.

And no one cares.

There’s a thought for Christmas……

Mental Capacity Act, Best Interests, Removal to State Care, and Human Rights.

Once, it has been assessed, that a person lacks ‘capacity’ to make a decision.

The MCA provides, any decision on their behalf, must be, as thought, the incapacited would have made it. s4.

But, with the huge caveat, of paternalism-

Only if, it is thought to be, in that persons, ‘best interests’.

This further removes, a deemed ‘incapable’s’ autonomy

Already illegal under Art 17 UN Directive as ‘substitute decision making’.

This is why, charities for the elderly, advocate, joint decision making.

Charities, for the mentally disabled/autistic do not.

Nor, do the courts.

Instead, what the incapacitated decision would have been, is overridden, to whatever the state believe is in his ‘best interests’.

The House of Lords  select committee report revealed,

‘families and carers painted a depressing picture of their exclusion from decision making’,

let alone, the incapable’s  exclusion.

At best, families, are consulted, but have no right, to be part of the decision making process.

Nor do Independent Mental Capacity Advocates.

A person’s ‘best interests’, is left to a social services /NHS best interests assessor.

With no independent voice.

Or, consideration of, the conflict of interests, arising from the profit from state private provision and, the LA policy of only funding such care, and, the incapacitated person’s wishes, and interest.

The ‘best interests’ assessors, if disputed,abrogates ultimate responsibility, to the courts.

But, the court of protection work load, since implementation of MCA, has increased by 60%, whilst staff decreased by 30 %.

There is no non means tested legal aid for fanilies,

And, as the HL report,  the legal profession, nor apparently, anyone, fully understands the Act.

But, is it appears to be being deliberately misinterpreted, as the drafters knew, it would have to be,

as the Act, as drafted is unworkable, as shown by the recent  Cheshire Supreme Court judgement on Deprivation of Liberty.

An official solicitor, will be appointed to represent, the ‘Incapacitated’.

As the incapable’s family’s interests, will usually be deemed to conflict with the incapable, as their neglect/abuse/incapacity will usually be alleged .

This Official Solicitor, is anything, but independent, as paid by the state.

And, receives information only, from professional agencies, instructed by the Local Authority .

As, his client is incapable of instructing him, he cannot take his instructions.

Therefore, an OS, cannot fulfil his duty to his client, and, the court, to obtain a fair hearing.

Illegal blanket assessments, and capacity tests, are used.

And are systemically, impossible, to challenge.

The act, even exempts an expert from liability, if he reasonably believes, a person is incapable.

But not, if he uses, an illegal test, or does not comply with the MCA, his duty to the incapacitated, or the court.

Additionally, the Act requires that in making the decision,

‘ regard must be had as to whether the purpose for which it is needed can be as effectively achieved in a way that is less restrictive of the person’s rights and freedom of action’.

As, the usual decision to be made, is removal from home, to a state private institution.

And,  as LAs have now, on the excuse of cost cutting, removed effective support at home.

It will not be difficult to show, that such care and support, cannot be ‘effectively achieved’, without removal.

So, the state’s withdrawal of support at home, and, within the community, aids the ‘best interests’ decision, they seek.

State  private profit providers, can then claim, the large amounts of money, the disabled, and their families, are entitled to,  under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Act 1970.

And worse, are being allowed to do so, for basic, unaccountable services.

And the incapable serve user, cannot complain.

The LA  adult social services care managers oversee them.

But, there is a conflict of interests, between this role, and their commissioning role.

As if the service is inadequate, the LA will be liable.

Adult Services Managers, have now replaced Adult Social Workers, except, for the enforcement process into state care.

As with all legislation, the MCA, must be interpreted, to give effect to the incapacitated human rights, of privacy, and a family life.

State removal, away from family, and 24 hour supervision, is the ultimate interference with theirs, and their family’s human right under s 8.

And, an incapacitated person, via a next friend, could apply for a prohibitory injunction under s8 Human Rights Act, to prevent his removal.

But, how would the incapacitated, or, his family know this.

And, be able to enforce it ?

The Official Solicitor, paid by the state, will be in favour of  removal.

The family member, has very limited  legal aid, and, the risk of the LAs costs.

And, will have to find a lawyer, willing to take on the state, and, be able to pay him.

.