Monthly Archives: March 2018

NOTICE OF HEARING   (Community 17a CTO)

22 MARCH 2018  AT 10.30 AM  – Notice of Hearing sent from Mental health Tribunal Secretariat  Clerk to the Tribunal First Tier Tribunal (Mental Health)  PO Box 8793  5th Floor   LEICESTER   LE1 8BN

On 22nd March at 9.00 am  Elizabeth had to be at Chase Farm Hospital Enfield to see an independent doctor.  I gave her a lift to the hospital together with the Manager of her scheme.  Neither one of us were allowed to be with her for this assessment or the Tribunal itself despite requests and Elizabeth’s wishes which I have proof of we were excluded.

We sat waiting patiently in the hope that we could attend the Tribunal. Whilst waiting in the MHA Office upstairs I tried to hand in the corrected version of care plan and CTO Report to the MHA Manager (TM).  She responded stating that she would not accept the papers  – “you are not the Nearest Relative and we are not speaking to you –  I am not accepting these papers”  – words to this effect.  I took a picture of the name plate on her office door .  I was spotted doing this and she went ballistic and told me she would have me arrested.  A man then came out of his office.  I explained I had simply photographed the name plate on the door of the office – he could have even seen this if he wanted.  He responded to the effect I could have asked the names and he would have given them to me.   So I asked his name which was Michael Chalmers Head of Mental Heath Law.   I recognised his name instantly and I referred to his letter of apology of 12 July 2017 that the Trust had infringed Elizabeth’s liberty –  “we will be looking carefully at this incident to establish what went wrong and how we can prevent something like this happening again”.   “Please don’t hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or concerns or if you wish to discuss this matter with a member of your clinical team or with an advocate or solicitor”.   I said it was not good that Elizabeth was illegally detained. On one another occasion I complained that Elizabeth had her solicitors cancelled and knew nothing about it.  That is extremely bad.   The response I had was that this was with her consent but I want everyone to know that Elizabeth had not asked for her solicitors to be cancelled and knew nothing about it.  Mr Chalmers spoke of how hard he was working but I don’t see what this has got to do with illegal detention –  perhaps he meant that they were snowed under and that is why such errors occurred but I am only assuming this but in my opinion it is not good enough and I feel that some form of compensation should be given to Elizabeth in the circumstances.

The worse part is yet to come!!  I received shocking treatment.  I was asked to leave the MHA Office by the manager and refused as I had only taken a picture of the sign on the door and not of anyone else.  I was threatened with arrest and next thing a security guard in front of me asking me to leave.   I was impressed by his approach having once myself applied to work in this Profession and Police.  Unlike the Professionals employed by the Trust his approach was polite and decent so I left to go downstairs.  The Tribunal ended around mid-day – all this length of time taken up so many professionals – including representation by hospital manager, Judge, Psychiatrist RC, care coordinator and manager of the scheme who like me had to sit waiting outside.  There was also a solicitor representing Elizabeth.   This must have cost an absolute fortune for all these professionals to spend all morning attending and the taxpayer is paying huge amounts for such hearings.    It is also stressful for my daughter who does not like meetings and to be fired questions at surrounded by strangers.   She has been diagnosed as having autism high spectrum aspergers and even going to that hospital is stressful for her.   she originally did not wish to attend.   Afterwards she had given consent for her solicitor to discuss matters with me.    I had prviously sent amended care plan with correct NR on and CTO documents directly to the Tribunals Office.  The Nearest Relative (Elizabeth’s sister was away on holiday but applied for myself and other family member/close friend to be present but this was not allowed.   Quite frankly there is a lot of money to be made by independent doctors, solicitors, psychiatrists and others in extra funding by continuing a lucrative Order such as CTO.   This means regular meetings, progress reports, extra time spent on providing what is least wanted restrictive care, forced treatment and threats of recall which professionals like to use on vulnerable people.  Hence the reason I think they should be abolished along with DoLs

As I sat in the foyer waiting I was delighted to bump into someone I knew and had not seen for a long time.

Afterwards Elizabeth, myself and care support/Manager went into the canteen for coffee and Elizabeth had lunch/ .   There was a wonderful person who joined us at our table speaking of her role in peer support and how she started with a voluntary position and progressed to a paid position within the Trust.  She gave Elizabeth good advice and much to think about.   Afterwards I heard her ask the Manager of her scheme to help her get a job.   Even if it is a voluntary job just for 1 day a week it would be very good for Elizabeth and with the right kind of support she could regain her confidence.  Only time will tell if anyone gives her any help at all in this direction as only 1 person is working within that entire scheme so I heard.  In the community people like Elizabeth suffer from isolation and making friends this is not easy if you are not working, stuck in a mental health scheme where not even a front door key is provided and forced to live there.  There is nothing wrong with house or area but what is wrong is the way professionals treat people like Elizabeth and under a CTO they can really treat people badly and threaten them with recall  to hospital.   I knew that the result of the CTO Hearing would be unfavourable and this is because the report is deliberately written so she fails.  So I think CTO’s  are a waste of public money, are not being used fairly and it is wrong to threaten someone like Elizabeth.    I also think that Tribunals on displacement of  Nearest Relative for being “unreasonable” is extremely unfair.  There is no legal aid to back you in court and you are unrepresented.  The remit of the Judge is limited and does not include concerns on diagnosis being contradictory or treatment being harmful or ineffective.    The power is in the hands of unaccountable professionals (AMHPS) who prepare a case full of lies and errors.  They could not even get my address right and to be honest the court papers were so unprofessional that they should have been scrapped and the Hearing not allowed to go ahead.   I was treated extremely unfairly and bullied because when you are threatened with enormous costs you do not wish to lose your home and this is a fact that you are either forced to delegate or accept the Council’s Professional to be NR and then they exclude the patient and that involves a capacity assessment – yet more money wasted.   I presented a good case but was at huge disadvantage as when I asked for a report from Huntercombe this was refused.    How can I be unreasonable when an entire team have only recently diagnosed Elizabeth with high functioning Aspergers.

As for the Care Plan even if the care coordinator is not named as entering details as to diagnosis/dates and descriptions they are responsible for such a plan as they are aware of such comments that again are deliberately written to sabotage any chance of a  fair hearing and this is what has been done in Elizabeth’s case.    In addition to the enormous time taken up of those present at the Tribunal Hearings, substantial time had gone into preparing reports – CTO report is 11 pages long, full of typing errors stating he instead of she and other huge errors such as who the NR is.  What is frightening is that these records are held on the system Rio so that any new professionals look at these and go by them and no corrections are made and in some cases patients as well as their carers may be oblivious as to what is recorded behind their backs because a team of   “professionals” like to bully the weak, vulnerable and their families by way of CTOs and other sections   For example the CTO Report contains several threats of recall to hospital therein if someone does not engage with them.    This is why CTO’s should be abolished – waste of time and huge savings could be made from public money.  If Elizabeth was to behave in a manner seen to be risk to self/others she would simply be recalled anyway under Section 3 which can be dragged out for many many years in some cases.

I have files going way back of disturbing content on the latest CC who goes back to when Elizabeth was sent to Wales – Cambian.   It is sad and very wrong that the current system allows for such professionals to abuse vulnerable people, to write defamatory comments and to tear their families apart – such comments can be written about their families too for court purposes to make them look bad which I will feature on another occasion.

I suppose by not having a  front door key this is a means of deprival of liberty – they’ve got to be back by a certain time, otherwise they cannot get in as staff are asleep.   How degrading is this.

Deprival of liberty is abusive and so is to constantly test someone on their capacity which again is costly – should be done fairly and (not by any AMHPs) involved in their care who judging by file comments speak in the most dreadful terms behind someone’s back –  this is totally wrong – comments such as  “we must be more robust in that institutional care is the best option”  – But to the taxpayer this is the most expensive as incarceration of vulnerable people like Elizabeth carted off to private all for profit prison (hospitals) is of no benefit to someone like Elizabeth and people are dying too in such places.  They are just not getting the right care and the environment is totally wrong.   I am in touch with those who have lost their relatives and there needs to be proper investigations and recordings of such deaths as in these institutions so that there is accountability of the professionals involved and this is not just covered up –  my concerns are for those drugged up enormously and yet no one is questioning what some of the doctors are doing.

CTO Report: –  This lists details such as RC and Care Coordinator and Report prepared by Psychiatrist DR NABEEL AHMED ASSOCIATE SPECIALIST.    I am wondering if the report is in fact written by the care coordinator but is certainly signed by Dr Ahmed and current RC.

This report is dated 23 February 2018 and information is obtained from Rio electronic records and lists INCORRECTLY the Nearest Relative as Debbie Morgan (AMHP Manager – London Borough of Enfield).  CTO Report totally dismisses that of Huntercombe (high spectrum aspergers).  I have yet to obtain this report as they have refused to give it and this put me at a disadvantage in court last year.  The diagnosis which Barnet Enfield and Haringey MH Trust stick with is F20 Paranoid Schizophrenia (but where is the “Treatment Resistance?  –  this should not have been removed especially in light of the accurate lab test results on P450 liver enzyme that prove Elizabeth is a non metaboliser of psychiatric drugs.

Letter from RN of ….law  Re: Displacement of NR:

“The issue for the Court is whether you have acted “unreasonably” and whether you should be the Nearest Relative.  The Local Authority are clearly keen to bring matters to an end and seem happy for CB (Elizabeth’s Sister) to be NR.  This is clearly positive.  It is what Elizabeth wants and means that the LA do not fulfil that role.  I understand you are aggrieved by matters which have happened to your daughter but this is not for the Court to decide.  The Court has a limited remit.” 

Letter from CB – Delegated NR who appealed against CTO dated 14 March 2018  to TSMH Case

“I attach Tribunal Appeal on behalf of my sister as NR.  On the CTO papers it is recorded that Debbie Morgan is NR when in fact it is myself.  These papers should be amended and I will contact MA (CC) regarding this.   There are some terrible things written about my sister in the care plan which are totally untrue and have been reported to the Police. A CTO is like a form of punishment and restricting for my sister as she has no front door key and forced to live where she is but this should not be for a long time as both myself and my Dad live in other areas. She may like to move nearer to one of us.

My sister is an adult who should have a front door key.  It is degrading not having a front door key and nowhere to hang her clothes so we bought furniture and this is not allowed.  I therefore back my sister in appealing against the CTO.  It will not do her any good to be taken back on a ward – she may like to live elsewhere and should not be restricted in moving if she wants to.    Please ensure you have my name as NR and not Debbie Morgan as this is what was agreed by the Council.  My mother was forced to give up her role as NR as she was threatened with huge costs.  Is it possible for the Tribunal to be postponed? – I’m only away for 1 week. If not then Elizabeth should be entitled to have someone from her family in accordance with her wishes and I have proof this is what she wants.  Her previous solicitor put pressure on Elizabeth to say otherwise and sign some papers.”

The Nearest Relatives comments above have been completely ignored.


Past History is wrong.  I have re-typed the whole report from scratch.   The most disturbing thing apart from the negative comments are the Treatment Plan and Conditions.

  • To cooperate with Community MH Team/Care Worker at Supported Accommodation to administer and supervise her oral MH medication on a daily basis.
  • Dose and frequency and duration of medication to be reviewed by RC.
  • To reside at her accommodation or specified place by HIS CC.
  • To see a SOAD at a place agreed if/when needed (as far as I know this has not been done)
  • CPA (Care Programme Approach) meeting to be attended prior to CTO end date.
  • To allow access to CC, RC and others staff into her property to assess her mental health sate and compliance with prescribed medication


  • If she refuses medication CC to arrange appointment with psychiatrist at earliest opportunity and urgent CPA to discuss non-compliance, risk to self/others and RECALL TO CHASE FARM MENTAL HEALTH UNIT AT CHASE FARM HOSPITAL OR ANY IDENTIFIED HOSPITAL FOR ASSESSMENT AND TRATMENT.
  • If non- attendance of second appointment the care coordinator MA to arrange urgent CPA review meeting to discuss non compliance.
  • CTO provides a framework for engagement, continuity and has ensured attendance post discharge which has enabled discussions about treatment and negotiation.  Should this not work there will be option of recall should severity of the situation necessitate.


LIES:  – TOO MANY TO MENTION – that is why I have accurately gone through file records and corrected the whole report.  The report is unprofessionally written and mentions he instead of she on numerous occasions.   It is written by someone who just like the AMHP who produced the RcJ Witness Statements last year records erroneously:  names are spelt wrongly, information fabricated/designed deliberately to make the vulnerable person look dreadful.  Beyond doubt a CTO is punishment of the State when you get professionals such as this threatening constantly to recall if you don’t do what they say -I reckon people who go into such a profession love the power to bully someone vulnerable like my daughter and on the whole get away with it.  CTOS are virtually impossible to get off but who cares whilst extra money is being made.   The law is on their side and there is NO ACCOUNTABILITY and should be.   It is truly sad to read such a report stating IQ to be low when Huntercombe and even the newly qualified psychologist at her scheme state IQ to be the opposite – high spectrum Aspergers yet Elizabeth is in a mental health scheme where only 1 person in their entire schemes has a job and is working.  Elizabeth is not being treated fairly at all.   Elizabeth had to go into her Tribunal without anyone familiar being present and had to answer questions to these people like a criminal trial.     We had accompanied Elizabeth upstairs to the Mental Health Act Office.

The time was 9.00 am and Elizabeth had to attend to meet an “independent doctor” first before going into the Tribunal.  She seemed quite calm about the whole thing.  Numerous requests had been made by her NR to the Tribunal’s Office for someone to go in to the Tribunal with her and constantly it was evident that they did not want any family members or even a close friend of the family to be present.  I have a text message from Elizabeth asking me to be present even though I am no longer the nearest relative.

I had corrected the CTO papers along with a Care Plan and Review that contains lies and defamatory comments.  This care plan and review was also dated 28 February 2018.  Consent Recorded Date 03.08.2017  that she does not want information shared with her mother and has agreed for information to be shared with professionals.    Well I luckily have had all the information that Elizabeth has shared with me and just as well because someone needs to be responsible for the pack of lies and defamatory comments therein.

The only person named on this is the care coordinator who is based at Enfield Community Rehab Team who are based at 65c Park Avenue  Enfield EN1 2HL – the same team who deprived Clozapine to force return Elizabeth to care at Phoenix House in 2014.

I have already spoken to one of the people who made entries on the care plan under  Diagnosis –  This person – Tina Keeling knew nothing about the entries and I genuinely believed her.

The most disturbing lies are the following:

  • Mixed and other personality disorders     12 June 2017  Sangeetha Kalimuthu
  • Mental and behavioural disorder due to use of alcohol dependence syndrome – Jane Hobden – 01.09.2017
  • Mental and behavioural disorders due to multiple drug use and use of other psychoactive substances /harmful use  –  01.09.2017
  • Three entries of history of self-harm by Jane Hobden  01 June 2017 and 15 Feb 2017.
  • Problems related to alleged sexual abuse of child by person outside primary support group

It is quite possible that these people have been used in such a way they are oblivious to having made such comments as recorded in the care plan.

SO PERHAPS THE MANAGER OF ENFIELD COMMUNITY REHAB WOULD LIKE TO EXPLAIN WHY SUCH LIES APPEAR IN THE CARE PLAN AND WHY RECORDS HAVE NOT BEEN AMENDED TO SHOW CORRECT NEAREST RELATIVE.  THAT MANAGER IS BASED AT 65C PARK AVENUE ENFIELD LONDON EN1 2HL.  A FULL ENQUIRY NEEDS TO BE DONE  – I would like such an enquiry to be open and honest as the law is being abused so that CTO’s Tribunals fail on account of what is written in reports by certain professionals who deliberately exaggerate or fabricate the truth for which they surely should be held responsible for.

Re: Letter dated 19th September to Elizabeth from Barnet Enfield & Haringey NHS Trust Mental Health Act Office Chase Farm Hospital:

The letter advises CTO expires on 17 March 2018 explaining it will be rescinded if no longer thought to be necessary OR your RC will recall to hospital for treatment for up to 72 hrs if they feel your health or safety or safety of others are at risk.  Re-assessment and one possible outcome is revocation of the CTO which would make you liable to be detained in hospital for treatment for up to 6 months.  If your RC does decide to recall you to hospital you will be provided with a written notice of recall.  If you do not return to hospital voluntarily once you have received notice of recall staff have the power to return you to hospital.

The Trust has  a duty to give you certain information under these circumstances. (a leaflet enclosed) – what it means for you and right of appeal. Offering contact with an Independent MH Advocate – understanding and exercising your rights, making your point of view heard. 

Extracts from recent email sent to the RC and AMHP enclosing the amended care plan with correct file entries from professionals and the amended CTO papers with the correct Nearest Relative.


Please ensure that the defamatory comments written about my daughter are corrected for the forthcoming Tribunal.  No she never had a drug/alcohol dependency problem.  No she never self-harmed.  No she has never sexually abused a child re serious allegations.     I look forward to seeing those amendments and especially that CB is down as NEAREST RELATIVE.

Please ensure that Elizabeth has the white tablets of Risperidon and not the coloured dye ones as it is recorded in file records allergy.

 I have been through all the file records to ensure accuracy.

 I would like to know who Jane Hobden is and what is her position within Barnet Enfield & Haringey MH Trust.   I would like to speak to her as Tina Keeling knew nothing of her “entries” on the care plan.

 I would also like to know about Why DM (AMHP) is put down on the CTO papers as Nearest Relative when it is CB?

 In addition I would like to know why you have put No to Section 117 and not given a reason.

 A CTO should not be reason to threaten vulnerable people like my daughter and I want them scrapped. 

Cygnet and Huntercombe are very unsuitable environments and it was because of Cygnet Stevenage that she came home unstable as they raised the Aripiprazole to double just before release

 Kind regards



I will keep you all informed.



These comments below are 100% true and this blog has been discussed with Elizabeth before posting. Elizabeth wants something done about the Mental Health Act and so do I and the treatment of herself and so many who are denied choices in life and dignity along with basic human rights in the UK.  CTO’s Dols- In-house Assessments should be abolished in favour of decent care.

28.02.2018 – care plan

Under diagnosis:

7 entries of “paranoid schizophrenia all around the time when Elizabeth was dreadfully abused under Moti Villa.   All entered by Tina Keeling – someone new – who is she ???

On 15 February 2017, 01 January (two entries) self- harm dated 01 January 2017 all stating self harm which is completely untrue – all entered by Jane Hobden who is a complete stranger to the case – who is she??? 

Jane also goes on to say Elizabeth has mental and behavioural disorders due to use of alcohol/dependence syndrome.   WELL JANE HOBDEN –  what on earth are you talking about????   If Jane was to read “PAST HISTORY CORRECTLY it stated no drug or alcohol dependency and that we as a family know to be true. 

Jane Hobden goes onto state “Problems related to alleged sexual abuse of child by person outside primary support group  –  please explain what on earth are you talking about???? – the entry for this is dated 01 Sep 2017.    These disturbing comments prompted me to visit Edmonton Police Station last night as I am most concerned. The Police reassured me they had absolutely nothing on their records so now we would like to hear what Ms Hobden is going on about.

Interestingly Aspergers syndrome is mentioned only once by Jane Hobden on the 01 June 2017.  Elizabeth has been said to have this condition more than once in the files so I can see from my records.

Tina Keeling documents “emotionally unstable PD 15.02.17

Mixed and other personality disorders are entered by Shalandran Padayachee – who is she???

Perhaps someone can enlighten me as to what “simple schizophrenia is” as mentioned by Tina Keeling.

In court papers it is documented that Schizophrenia is in the “Jeans”  ?????  can anyone enlighten me????  Are there any doctors that could explain what on earth do they mean. I’ve heard of genes but never Jeans in terms of so called mental health conditions.   Lets hear from the Doctors about these “Jeans” please.  

Not only have I contacted the Police but just like the professionals above I am documenting evidence of the kind of abuse going on to vulnerable people under care who as Finola Moss states:

“its quite terrifying the powers the AMHP, Police etc have to MHA sections, detain and forcefully medicate particularly now under S136.  Are there no second opinions allowed?  What are the safeguards and where are the civil liberties??

Why are there only two parent representatives at the review?  Yes, why is that so?????

All very disheartening.”

Elizabeth is 31 now and I do not think she is being treated very fairly at all.  She is not a risk to self or others.  She has only just been assessed by an independent psychiatrist for court purposes as having full capacity.   She does see things differently to other people and expresses herself differently BUT SO WHAT – Baroness Hollins is the person I am impressed with whom the team could learn a great deal from as she knows how to communicate with someone like my daughter and is an honest person who I met at the Royal College of Nursing recently.  It is all about “truth trust and consent” as Dr Bob Johnson would say in his book “Emotional Health” and Dr Johnson was the Consultant Psychiatrist who did an excellent and true report on Elizabeth for court purposes whilst at Cambian Wales.

Elizabeth has never self-harmed so why document she has when she hasn’t?

She has been reluctant to take medication as it has given her terrible side effects but she is allergic to the current medication and would like a small reduction -she is not asking to come off it altogether right now – the Risperidon has cased a nasty rash previous doctors took notice of this and stopped the medication.   When Elizabeth stopped taking the drug on one occasion a nurse (unconnected with the scheme) who is a friend had a chat with Elizabeth and explained in a nice way the reasons why she should not just stop taking these chemicals in one go.   If the reduction had been done properly by the NHS she would not have suffered withdrawal symptoms (not relapse of a so called illness).  She cannot metabolise the drugs as documented in the P450 liver enzyme test certificate.

It is threatening what I am reading in the report –  it is truly horrible that the “Activities” column is practically all about medication and the untrained support workers who learn about prescribing on line are expected to: ensure she and others take the drugs, explain why she is having to take the drugs, encourage her to comply with taking the drugs, to explain the importance and benefits of medication and possible side effects. The staff would not have the knowledge – they are not trained as are doctors and nurses but even they choose to ignore serious side effects and such doctors should cause no harm. We have turned to professors and scientists who know the workings of these drugs and do have the expertise.   Psychiatrist Dr Ilyas Mirza (Consultant) is the one responsible –  he is prescribing the drug Risperidon off label  –  well over the time recommended by Manufacturers and her GP is prescribing drugs to counteract the side effects of this medication such as laxatives for constipation which is life threatening and Piriton to get rid of the rash (isn’t this combination contra indicated).   One drug to counteract the other – I believe this is not the answer to prescribe lots of other drugs on top of one she is allergic to especially to someone who is documented in the files as having problems with physical health – quite serious from what I can read from the files.  She came off the drug Aripiprazole  too steeply and was allowed to do this under NHS care instead of a slow gradual titration.  The NHS is spending a fortune on the wrong types of facilities trapping people like my daughter on never ending CTOs which are for control purposes and have attached conditions to them such as forcing someone to live at a certain place – it says  Elizabeth has to live at the accommodation she has been given and what is thought to be in her best interest.  It says that her family MUST NOT remove her from this supported accommodation or terminate her tenancy without agreement from ENFIELD COMMUNITY REHAB TEAM  who are based at Park Avenue Bush Hill Park Enfield and the goals are to help her live independently.  SO HOW DOES THIS WORK BY NOT GIVING HER CHOICE, BY THREATENING THAT SHE COULD END UP BACK IN HOSPITAL – IF SHE REFUSES TO TAKE THE DRUG.   HOW DOES THIS WORK IF SHE DOES NOT LIKE WHERE SHE IS LIVING, IS NOT BEING TREATED FAIRLY.  SHE IS COMPLYING WITH THEIR DRUGS – SHE IS OF NO RISK TO SELF OR OTHERS.   SHE FINDS MEETINGS STRESSFUL AND THEIR VISITS ARE SOMETIMES WITHOUT WARNING SO SHE HAS NO ADVOCATE WITH HER.  “she needs a little support and future placement is crucial  but one day she would like to live in her own accommodation and prefers to do things at her own pace.  She does not wish to be rushed or asked to do many activities”     This accommodation is paid for by Enfield CCG and Local Authority.

We as a family have no plans to take her away from the accommodation right now but how does this work if Elizabeth became unhappy then she should be entitled to leave this accommodation and there have been times she has been unhappy.   It is not the house, it is not the area, it is not the residents, it is not the majority of support workers who make Elizabeth unhappy.    What is making her unhappy at that accommodation is having to engage with a team who have previously been involved and my story of Get Her Back We Are Paying for That relates to this team and time and time again they have taken me to court to displace me as the nearest relative whereas if we had been included in open dialogue things could have been so different – there would be honesty, transparency – no nastiness such as the comments in red above.  I think that open dialogue is the way forward and I applaud those areas where this has been adopted.  It is costly to keep taking someone to court and threatening all the time.  Elizabeth has a mind of her own – it is documented about her attending Enfield Community Rehab with one of their psychologists who is known to us but she did not wish to attend the five sessions that were offered (nothing to do with me as I did not know about this at the time).  Elizabeth decided on her own accord she did not want this and wanted art therapy instead.  Elizabeth is more interested in art and music therapy than psychology sessions from what I can see.   Elizabeth has been told by the Community Rehab team to attend their Park Avenue day centre but Elizabeth has stated she does not wish to attend and prefers to do her own choice of activities and does not wish any other activities to be imposed on her.   (nothing to do with me –  I am pleased that Elizabeth is finding her voice to speak up).   She wants to go back to catering work so I see – she has a wellness and recovery pack – we’ve had all this before and nothing was offered and given in terms of activities after 6 months at Moti Villa.


Poor sleep    (she is sleeping fine)

Agitation (no even her recent operation she has coped with)

Low mood (no because she can go out places and has made friends)

Increased paranoid thoughts –  she hasn’t got any paranoid thoughts at all.  The only time we saw negative effects was when she had come off TOO STEEPLY the drug which is bound to be anyone’s reaction.  

Inappropriate laughing –  NO –  this goes back to when Elizabeth was in day centre at Chase Farm in 2008 or 9  when she went missing from the day centre with someone who should have been escorted everywhere who was on a criminal charge. 

The comments are  getting worse – they have dug out the most negative comments at the time when Elizabeth going back to 2010.

Headache – YES – this is true – a side effect of the drugs given

Anger – well surely Elizabeth is entitled to some emotions after all she has been through isn’t anyone??  – as it happens Elizabeth does not suffer from negative emotions relating to anger any more.

Low appetite –  absolute rubbish.  She is cooking, looking after herself in this respect

Paranoid that the police are coming to get her.  ACTUALLY THE POLICE HAVE TREATED MY DAUGHTER MORE FAIRER THAN THE PROFESSIONALS –  the Police have got more skills in talking to Elizabeth than some who are closely involved in her care right now and what upset Elizabeth having moved from hospital environment to the community after over 20 weeks was being expected to immediately engage in the activities and programme of the scheme, yes she did flare up and suffered from anxiety at the beginning, yes she did react to situations especially when staff announced “I’m calling the Police” –  yes she did react to them trying to push a highly addictive drug called Lorazepam regularly.  Yes it has not been smooth her settling in to a scheme after becoming more traumatised by the very wrong environment of acute ward over 20 weeks plus

“unusual personality”  that is totally wrong “can be OK one moment and not the next”    In actual fact Elizabeth has a different way of seeing things.  She is being treated like a prisoner being ordered to do what these professionals say who are constantly monitoring her instead of letting her do things herself when she is ready, expecting her to fill out a Wellbeing book, expecting her to engage with their activities when it is clear she has interests she would like to pursue which could be provided such as art and music.   If she had a little voluntary job this would be good but where is the help for this. Elizabeth would need a mentor as she can misinterpret sometimes situations and  what someone is saying to her and vice versa.

NO WAY DOES SHE HEAR VOICES AND NEVER HAS DONE AND THIS WAS SOMETHING I QUERIED FROM THE START   Hearing voices does not mean someone has Schizophrenia.  Everyone can hear a voice in their head telling them to get up for work, to do the ironing, to go out somewhere, what to eat.  WHAT IS WRONG WITH HEARING VOICES AS  EVERYONE HEARS VOICES.  On a negative front if someone has been extremely badly abused and this may not necessarily be via their own families as professionals tend to jump to conclusion but there could be abuse from outside of the family and immediately without proper assessment on physical health, psychiatric drugs are prescribed which you cannot just come off and if you do it too steeply then someone can end up suffering from withdrawal symptoms and psychosis.    The fact is that doctors do not wish to help taking the easy way out – there are no facilities for the purpose of withdrawing safely from prescribed drugs anywhere in the UK and when you take someone off these drugs it reveals everything and that this person is in fact NOT MENTALLY ILL AT ALL but has had his/her emotions suppressed for so many years – Elizabeth spoke clearly and told the entire family what happened to her so she has never heard voices.

As far as unusual personality goes –  she is just a normal person, experiencing quite normal reaction to what she has been through and what has NOT been dealt with for so many years properly.

Elizabeth has stated she will engage with the “new” or should I say “old” care coordinator from Cambian days back in 2012 -she would prefer a home visit –  that is reasonable and not as documented – she has not been able to go out much lately because of her foot.  This is something she dealt with herself, getting herself to and from the appointment because no one could go with her.

Yes she does need a bit of support with budgeting but finds it difficult to engage with staff on this issue.

She can cook and do shopping on her own

“no management problem”  –   it sounds so clinical – it sounds as though they describe an object rather than a person who has feelings and those feelings should be understood by professionals but are clearly not.

Now they go on to say positive things:

  • Well groomed, no evidence of neglect.
  • Feeling well and expressed no concerns.
  • Sleep and appetite normal yet earlier comments record otherwise.
  • Bright and cheerful in mood, smiling appropriately and good rapport throughout.
  • No evidence of psychosis- abnormal thought or paranoia.
  • No suicidal thoughts of ideation or self harm or harm to others.

“She stated her mother no longer visits” – not true as I am often invited over but because I am at work I cannot always attend. I never said “leave you to your own device” – it sounds like you are talking about a machine.  I wish the team would leave Elizabeth to her own “device” and stop ticking their boxes and reporting wrongly.   Elizabeth does not need their “care” really in terms of what is provided in-house, she needs help in integrating into society and she needs a mentor to help her in a work environment of any kind.   All she wants is friends, kindness and does not wish to become isolated.  We don’t have long discussions on the phone but sometimes Elizabeth will ring me.    Now the care coordinator wishes to see her every two weeks – she is subject to a CTO which is nothing more than for control purposes and enables threat of re-admission into hospital.  I did not know an underlying section three ran at the same time.  I thought that once a section 3 came to an end then the CTO took its place.  It is nothing more than a section in the community but they cannot force drugs upon people unlike in hospital.  This is nothing more than to ensure that someone can easily be recalled to hospital if they so much as step out of line.

It is so upsetting the way they have described Elizabeth by saying she has a drug alcohol problem.  No way has this ever been the case.   She did go out with another resident and had an odd glass of alcohol but this made her feel unwell and she had the sense to realise that you should not mix medication with alcohol but at Mays Cottage she was offered cannabis and I could just imagine the staff coming in to work to smell that distinctive smell of weed –   I am laughing at this now as I would have liked to have seen their faces.  We took her on holiday to Scotland and she was invited to go with the private MH professionals  to France, Spain and Dubai and Australia – this care cost a fraction of the price of Cygnet, Huntercombe, Cambian and other shocking places.  It was doing her the world of good and she came back on a fraction of chemicals but did not want to take the tiny portion and this – not relapse of any so called illness got her back into shocking mainstream care.  If they turned to Baroness Hollins and Working to Recovery she could be 100% well and recover quickly and in my opinion it is only a matter of her gaining confidence and learning about other people and interactions – yes this is an area she needs help with as she can get things wrong and misunderstand.

One minute it says she does not wish to have information shared with her mother but Elizabeth likes to share information.  She shares her visits to family with staff and likewise is sharing with the family and this is why we should be included in OPEN DIALOGUE

When Elizabeth came back from Australia she wanted nothing to do with MH professionals who only think about drugging.  Most of this report is about drugs.

Whilst Elizabeth is accused of contradiction I would say that the team are the culprits here taking comments recorded in Past History at a time when Elizabeth was badly abused under care and trying to make out that this was due to her illness or the fault of her mother.  When I read the files going back to 2010 and the “nominal nearest relative” comments full of blame and mention of THE MOTHER.   Well that mother did a thorough investigation at a time she was training to be a Police officer herself.


Elizabeth has been kept informed of the contents of my blog and is happy for me to post this as judging by some of the comments I have received there are many who are in similar circumstances and could relate to what I have documented here and this is why in the absence of reporting in media it is good to report on what is going on.    I would praise Finola Moss for her brilliant blog which is so true.


NEAREST RELATIVE UNDER MENTAL HEALTH ACT 1983 (Sections 26-30 Mental Health Act 1983)

The following are treated as “relatives” under the MHA.

  • Husband/wife/civil partner;
  • Partner who has been living with you as if they were your husband, wife or civil partner for more than six months
  • Son or daughter
  • mother or father
  • brother or sister
  • grandmother or granddaughter
  • aunt or uncle
  • nephew or niece
  • anyone else you have been living with for at least five years 
  • Can a Nearest Relative Change?

Rules regarding who your nearest relative is means sometimes your NR might change without you or anyone else doing anything.  Eg. – if you got married your husband or wife would normally become your nearest relative.

OR – in our case:


Normally an Approved Mental Health Professional (AMHP) makes the application for detention or guardianship.  An AMHP is someone “specially trained” to decide whether people need to be detained or put on guardianship.  Questions need to be asked as to why such professionals behave the way they do towards vulnerable people my true story describes exactly what we went through in 2014 when clozapine was deprived for four days:    get-her-back-we-are-paying-for-that-17-05-15

S2 had expired.  Huntercombe sent her back to Suffolk Ward, Enfield.  Elizabeth had been forcibly drugged on contra-indicated Clonazepam and Risperiedon at Huntercombe and was  OF NO RISK TO SELF OR OTHERS contrary to what was written in the previous tribunal papers deliberately negatively by the RC.  I was waiting to meet Elizabeth when she had arrived back to Enfield around midnight.

Elizabeth had been sent all over London to different hospitals on PICU/acute wards and was further traumatised by all this as she was allowed to come off 2.5mg Aripiprazole at her request in one go by the NHS but they did not titrate it down properly.   These prison types of hospital facility (whether public or private) are no place for someone suffering from PTSD to get better.   Huntercombe  assessed her as having “high spectrum Aspergers” whereas locally she is said to have low intelligence which is not true at all.  Elizabeth was so happy to be regarded as someone who was intelligent by the team at Huntercombe but for some reason local doctors do not listen.   They prefer to stick to the damaging unscientific labels of  “Emotional Unstable Personality Disorder” or “Paranoid Schizophrenia”  but suddenly for some strange reason they have dropped (treatment resistant)” – “Treatment Resistant” means “poor/non metaboliser”.     No bio marker has ever been found for this unscientific label.  However, the label of “schizophrenia” is just an excuse for “treatment” using antipsychotic drugs which should only be given short term. Locally they prefer to ignore physical health problems and do not read the files properly before prescribing but then again, the files are full of errors and fabricated by non-medical professionals who have written untruthfully however – they prefer to ignore the damaging things that have happened to Elizabeth under their own care.   This “treatment” of Risperidon has been tried and failed before and Elizabeth had to be taken off the drug due to allergic reaction, hence my objection.  

I was Elizabeth’s nearest relative until recently when I was forced to delegate my role, threatened that I would get enormous costs if I continued to defend myself in court against people who have written the most nasty damaging and untrue comments against us. On return from Huntercombe, Elizabeth was placed on Section 5.2 – and deprived of her liberty unlawfully.  They had put her back on the drugs Clonazepam as well as Risperidon –  Elizabeth was of no risk to anyone yet some very detrimental things were stated by two doctors who elaborate using negative comments which did not apply to Elizabeth as she was subdued and drugged once again.  Elizabeth was denied time off the ward with her family on section 17 leave. We were told she did not wish to share information with us and this is constantly used I suppose for the reason it is protection for themselves. 


 “your detention under Section 2 MHA which began on 12th July 2017 ceased at midnight beginning 10th July 2017 because the 28 day period authorised by Section 2 elapsed at that time.  You were subsequently detained again using MHA holding powers at 6pm on the 10th July.  (If during the intervening 18-hour period between expiry of S2 and your detention under holding powers you were not consenting to remain on the ward it is likely your liberty was infringed)  I am very sorry if this is the case and hope you will accept my apologies on behalf of the Trust.  We will be looking carefully at this incident to establish what went wrong and how we can prevent something like this happening again in future.”   


London Borough of Enfield paid £308 to take me to court to displace me as NR with an AHMP I remembered back in 2010.    Elizabeth then lived at Moti Villa (a MH scheme in the community) and was dreadfully abused there.   The person appointed by the Local Authority as “nominal nearest relative” at the Royal Courts of Justice County Court Hearing I did not attend on 12 July 2017 was someone involved in the initial investigation into my complaint.  There were so many errors in the court papers I was surprised they were even accepted.  My address was wrong, names were misspelt.  “The Applicant seeks an urgent order displacing the Respondent as the nearest relative for her daughter ………………..and that the functions of the nearest relative shall be exercisable by the current DIRECTOR OF HEALTH, HOUSING AND ADULT SOCIAL CARE AT THE LONDON BOROUGH OF ENFIELD  – see below:

Accompanying the Application was a negative report by Dr M stating  “it was the opinion of the treating consultant  (Huntercombe) that  …………. has Aspergers syndrome and he advised a specialist referral.”  However Dr M states:   “It is in my opinion that …………has an underlying psychotic “illness” which at times results in her becoming highly aroused and unable to manage her own behaviour.  She has been assessed as having borderline learning difficulties and this is complicating her current presentation.   I have reviewed ………………..past history  (Past History is wrong) following more prolonged in-patient treatment with antispscyhotic medication ………….seems more settled and more able to engage in activities within the community.”  (ELIZABETH WAS NOT IN THE COMMUNITY AND HAD BEEN HELD LIKE A PRISONER FOR AT LEAST THREE MONTHS, DEPRIVED OF CONTACT WITH  FAMILY OFF WARD FOR QUITE SOME TIME.  SHE WAS NOT RELEASED FROM S3 UNTIL SEPTEMBER 2017.  


  • DELIBERATELY NEGATIVE REPORTS FOR TRIBUNAL WHEN ELIZABETH HAD BEEN STABLE (done for a reason said the RC when Elizbabeth asked “why?”)


It was not Section 3 I objected to but the facility itself and “treatment” of the same nature which had been tried and failed before.  I asked for a second opinion – it is even mentioned in the files that Elizabeth gained no benefit from antipsychotics and this is because Elizabeth cannot metabolise these drugs as proven by the P450 liver enzyme tests.  I wanted a SOAD to assess on complex trauma and for the proper treatment to be provided in the right environment but there are no decent facilities apart from in York where they have a place called “The Retreat” and “Amitola Communities”.   If Elizabeth got the right kind of care which is therapy I would not have minded about the Section 3 but this would not have been necessary as Elizabeth would have been compliant with such therapy as she was in Australia and Scotland where we found the right kind of care through http://www.working-to-recovery and saw Elizabeth come back well after four wonderful months away where she travelled extensively with private MH professionals who do not agree with damaging labels and gave proper care in the right environment.

Dr M’s Report dated 06.07.17:

…………….. has complex mental health difficulties and was transferred from PICU ward yesterday (05.07.17).  She has poor insight into her condition and could not be safely managed on the ward if she continued to be informal.  She is disorganised in her thinking and expressing delusional thoughts regarding the devil and does not believe she requires treatment at the present time.”     But what exactly is her condition? – an entire team from another hospital has disagreed as well as conflict of opinion in the local area by various other professionals previously and a full psychiatric report on complex PTSD.  Elizabeth was detained longer than was necessary in a hospital environment like prison  and a particularly negative report was produced on purpose by the RC for the last tribunal  which upset Elizabeth who asked “why” to which she was told  “this is done for a reason”.

I received a call from the AHMP (SM) from Enfield Community Rehab team to say they would be displacing me as Nearest Relative for being “unreasonable”.   I was told verbally  the Preliminary Hearing would be on 12 July 2017 and that the next morning I would be given full details.  I was not and I had to find out myself by phoning the Council’s legal department as by mid-morning I still had not heard anything about which court number and the Legal Department told me it was at RcJ and time so I had to  rush to get to the RcJ.  The Hearing took place without me because I was given the wrong details (ie. court no.) and I ended up attending the wrong court but Lady Justice Roberts saw me and even read all my evidence I had brought together on why Enfield Council would not make a suitable NR.  She was kind enough to write to me afterwards “Her Ladyship hopes you managed to get to the correct court for the hearing.”   This was about my best experience in court.  She had asked me what I hoped to see as an outcome and I responded “all I want is to be treated fairly” but I can see that things are not fair in court.  When you are dragged to court as I was and called “unreasonable” for a start you cannot get legal aid if you work/own a property.  When it came to medication/treatment the Judge had no remit and when I was asked if I disagreed with the treatment this went against me but this is wrong as there is conflict of opinion on diagnosis and treatment by professionals and Elizabeth should have had a SOAD who was completely independent from the local team and not chosen by the local team.  No way should a team of professionals locally be allowed to carry out assessments on anyone vulnerable like my daughter unless it is done independently.

In my absence I was displaced by the Court giving temporary consent for the Local Authority to act as NR but I recognised the name of the AHMP going back to 2010 and I objected on the grounds that she was absolutely unsuitable to act as NR.   I have her notes and her response to our PHSO complaint regarding when Elizabeth had been multiply abused under Moti Villa Scheme (2010) hence my objection to her “suitability” for the role of NR.

I was invited to attend the next Hearing on 19th July by and this time given the correct details but when I visited Elizabeth after going up to RcJ and after missing the Preliminary Hearing, the AHMP who took me to court (SM) was there and announced “Enfield Council are now your NR and then went on to comment about my unsuitability for this role.  She had barged in to my visit and told me to leave the patient’s visiting room but I refused.  I had rushed up to see Elizabeth and I felt she was extremely rude by barging in the way she did and by the way she spoke, ignoring me and directing her comments at Elizabeth and waving the Court Order in front of Elizabeth in a gloating manner.

The Judge remarked on my substantial evidence and was interested in the P450 liver Enzyme test results. When he said “have you seen this?” the Council’s legal representative said “no” which was untrue of course.    I provided substantial evidence especially as to why the “NOMINAL NEAREST RELATIVE OF ENFIELD COUNCIL WAS UNSUITABLE  to be NR and did a Witness Statement as well as “Particulars of Claim” – I had to correct their Particulars of Claim from start to finish as there were so many errors.  It took me a long time to do this and to type and present the legal documents to look identical to theirs.    

Some evidence by the Council’s Legal Representative was handed to the Judge which we had not seen, not included in the court papers.    I was given a copy of the two AHMP’s comments relating to a visit they made to Elizabeth at a time when she was not well which of course looked extremely negative but I have seen that these people like to invent all sorts and some comments in the court papers were hilarious.  I will comment on that later.

So I decided to respond to this evidence and I copied everyone in including the Judge’s Clerk but this did not go down at all well but I have never been forced to have to stand up for myself like this before and I never got a  chance to at Court of Protection in 2014.  Thankfully that case went in my favour and I have nothing but praise for the Court of Protection who have fairly treated us all along.  Elizabeth was allowed to come home and live a care home  said to be “Best Interest” where she had no food at the weekend –  all recorded in the files and this care home is Phoenix House Stepping Stones in Northampton rated “good” by the CQC 

It was decided it was “best interest” for Elizabeth to live in her “supported living scheme” in the community.  However Elizabeth is more settled now – a scheme such as this where residents are not even given front door keys should be only be for 1 year in my opinion.

When the Judge asked me would I agree to the “treatment” I responded –  “what treatment exactly”  – a drug she was found to be allergic to in the past for schizophrenia when Huntercombe diagnosed high functioning Aspergers. This resulted in the AHMP being allowed to remain as nominal NR pending next Hearing.  The NHS negligently allowed her to come off the last chemical in one go when it should have been slowly and gradually titrated down.   The treatment that should have been given was psychotherapy and EMDR and I had looked up some suitable facilities having spoken to someone I know who was a colleague of Dr R D Laing – here are some of his comments:

“my late friend and colleague Dr R D Laing worked with such folk using psychotherapy and no drugs. He and Dr Berke successfully treated Mary Barnes (she wrote a book about her experiences from severe mental disorder to good health) Mary came to see me with a brilliant idea which I was able to put into operation but giving credit to her (Philadelphia Association).  He mentions the Cassel Hospital specialising psychoanalytical psychotherapy.     The Cassel is an NHS Hospital.   “Ronnie Laing treated folk with psychoanalytical psychotherapy without drugs – it takes longer but is successful.    Psychiatrists are physicians not trained psychoanalytically.  I was once asked at Kings College Hospital London what drugs I used when treating patients with psychosis.  When I said as a psychoanalyst I did not use any drugs they were shocked. I was shocked that they were shocked.   


Particulars of Claim as amended 13.07.17

  1.  “This is an urgent application made under Section 29(3) of the MHA 1983 to displace the Respondent (Ms Susan Bevis) as the Nearest Relative of her daughter …… is the Applicant’s case that the following grounds under Section 29 (3) (c) and (e) of the MHA to displace the Respondent are made out:
  • the respondent unreasonably objects to the making of an application for admission for treatment in respect of her daughter …………………..;
  • the Respondent is not a suitable person to act as Nearest Relative.

Her mother (the Respondent to this application) is his??????  Nearest Relative.”

……………….is being held on Suffolk Ward – Chase Farm Hospital, The Ridgeway, Enfield EN2 7JR under section 5(2) of the MHA.  Detention under this provision in hospital is authorised for 72 hours.  Authority to detain ………………..under this provision expires at 00.00 on 12 July 2017. 

Manufacturers instructions for drugs such as Risperidone are only for about 8 weeks but doctors like to keep patients on these chemicals for a long time.

Medical Condition stated in Particulars of Claim, as amended 13.07.17.

“……………… was detained most recently on 13 June 2017)???  Don’t think this is right at all.

The Applicant considers that ……………….meets the criteria for admission for treatment under section 3 of the MHA and would make such an application if the Respondent were not objecting to the same”    The Respondent objects quite rightly so because such a ward is the wrong environment to get well- it is noisy and volatile and also the treatment is wrong for complex PTSD and high functioning Aspergers so how comes I am labelled as unreasonable when Doctors have diagnosed these conditions and a SOAD has been denied to Elizabeth?   

Consultants “Drs M and AA’s Report 6th and 7th July recommend that “……………… detained for treatment under section 3 MHA” handwritten in the Particulars of Claim  date of reading at being 10 July 2017.

It is my opinion that ………….has an underlying psychotic illness which at times results in her becoming high aroused and unable to manage her own behaviour.  She has been assessed as having borderline learning difficulties which is complicating her current presentation.  I have reviewed ………….past history and following more prolonged inpatient treatment with antipsychotic medication …………..appears more settled and more able to engage in activities within the community.  It is my opinion that …………..requires a further period of in-patient treatment in order to have a longer period of stability on antipsychotic treatment to allow a longer reintegration home with an exploration of her social activities and to allow a forensic assessment in order to try to contain any potential risk she poses to others.”    No she does not!

Past history: as documented in the files is inaccurate.    There is big conflict of opinion on diagnosis between various Doctors in fact, a huge divide in opinion with Huntercombe’s recent assessment but Elizabeth was denied a proper independent assessment by a specialist in the field of PTSD and Aspergers is being denied and recent opinion by a whole team at Huntercombe has been ignored in favour of “mental illness” “Emotionally Unstable Personality Disorder and paranoid schizophrenia.

The drug Risperiedon (2mg) is being prescribed and has been for four months and Elizabeth has not seen a SOAD (Second Opinion Doctor).   Doctors are ignoring the fact that Elizabeth had an allergic reaction to this drug back in 2012 and now she has a rash –  Here is an extract from the report on :

Drug History

she has been prescribed various antipsychotics including olanzapine, risperidone- to which she developed a rash) and aripiprazole with no response. She has been prescribed quetiapine for quite some time.  The current dose of quetiapine xl is 750mg once daily.    “on assessing her mental capacity formally around medication decisions on 2 December 2010 she was judged as having mental capacity to make a decision regarding her medication”

Risperidone – Current “Treatment” given by Enfield MH of which she is allergic and has  been prescribed Piriton.    Instead it would have been good if these doctors started to think along the lines of proper withdrawals such as by the following method – no way should people be forced to take these highly dangerous drugs long term, against manufacturers instructions.

We managed to get the poisonous dye tablets changed to white and every day Elizabeth’s support workers at her scheme give out the drugs.  They have built a medication room within the shared house and staff sit in there a lot of the time.  Elizabeth has come out in a rash all over her back and her GP at Oakwood Medical Practice has now prescribed Piriton but I have looked this up and found that this is contra-indicated.  There has been no review or reduction in the drug since her return to Suffolk Ward in July.   This is not good and also I note another prescription from Oakwood Medical Practice even more alarming is laxatives.   A known side-effect of the drug Risperidon is constipation and someone died of this recently.

Constipation death ‘wholly preventable’

Can I be forced to take medication when I am living in the community? – this piece below refers to something I have seen on the Mind website.

You cannot be compelled to take medication in the community. This is the case even if you are subject to supervised community treatment in the community under a Community Treatment Order (CTO). You may, however, be recalled to hospital if you have broken any conditions of your CTO, and you may be compelled to take medication there. For further information on the effects of supervised community treatment, see Community care and aftercare. Even if you are not subject to compulsion under any sections of the Mental Health Act, you may decide you have little choice about continuing to take your medication. For example, if you are still on section but your RC (or AC) has given you leave from the ward under section 17 MHA, they can revoke it at any time and require you to stay on the ward. Your RC (or AC) should not do this simply because you stop taking medication, but stopping may lead to a review of your health and a consideration of whether leave should continue. Similarly, if you have been conditionally discharged from hospital and are subject to supervision in the community, the Secretary of State for Justice may review your case, and has the power to recall you to hospital, if you are becoming a risk because you cease taking medication.

If you are discharged from section, you do not have to take medication. However, if concern is then expressed about your health or safety, the authorities might organise an assessment to decide whether you should be re-admitted to hospital, and possibly detained under the MHA. For further details, see Civil admission to hospital.

It seems like doctors are failing to inform patients of the risks and side effects of antipsychotics.  They are also failing to look thoroughly into a patient’s past history as if they did they would see that Elizabeth was taken off this same drug because of adverse reaction in 2012.  The unique P450 liver enzyme test results show “poor/non metaboliser” which means that Elizabeth is prone to adverse reactions on psychiatric drugs.      These tests I had done are not yet available through NHS but will be soon so I heard recently.  I had them done privately, recommended by the Country’s leading expert who referred Elizabeth to Holland.  “Treatment Resistant” = poor/non metaboliser of drugs as concluded with accurate lab tests.  Elizabeth’s symptoms have been mistaken for signs of “illness” when all along she could not metabolise these chemicals and was having a bad reaction to them plus of course she should have got counselling.  I was looking at my extensive records today back to 2010 when Elizabeth suffered serious abuse under Moti Villa – a scheme in the community.

By section 11(4) of the MHA an Approved Mental Health Professional (AHMP) may not make an application for admission for treatment under section 3 of the MHA in respect of a patient if the patient’s nearest relative has notified the AHMP that they object to the application being made.  The Applicant and the Consultant Psychiatrist consulted with the Respondent about the proposal to admit ………………. for treatment under Section 3 of the MHA. The Respondent objected to her daughter being detained for treatment under section 3 of the MHA.  But why unreasonable? when Doctors ignore manufacturer’s instructions giving contra-indicated drugs and keeping patients on  drugs longer than recommended by the manufacturers themselves. They do not titrate the drugs down slowly and gradually as they should and this leads to withdrawal symptoms which mistaken for relapse/symptoms of so called “mental illness”.    –  thank goodness there are some who care ie Dr Joanna Moncrieff – RADAR.

I think that my objection was far from unreasonable –  we sent Elizabeth to stay with MH professionals in their home for humane care for four months.  Elizabeth travelled from Scotland to France and Spain – then to Dubai then Australia.  We saw her come back so well – the best we’d ever seen.  Four months in a peaceful, natural environment with proper care such as psychotherapy and good food did her wonders.  It was possible to work with her on much less drugs – how can you effectively work with someone on enormous quantities of chemicals or expect them to engage when they feel terrible? 

I’m not the only parent who is fed up with what is going on in the UK.  Their sons/daughters are sent away hundreds of miles from home to “prison environments” owned by corporate providers where brutal treatment goes on and enforced drugging plus isolation from their families which is very detrimental.  It is profitable  for those offering the “care” which does not address the real causes and is a complete waste of money.   The law is failing to protect the weak and vulnerable and families are not supported in court to defend themselves and if someone is dragged to court like I was there seems to be no fairness especially as far as the Nearest Relative/deprival of liberty/mental capacity is concerned and these areas need to be amended under the MHA to make it fairer as mental health law can easily be usurped by professionals who are ruthless in their dealings as I will go onto further document.  There needs to be accountability so that the following abuses do not continue not just within hospitals both private and public under MH/LD but also in connection with private providers of supported housing/living accommodation – these should be regulated independently and NOT BY ANY LOCAL AUTHORITY.    

Dispatches (Undercover Inside the Priory: Channel 4 …  

‘Disgusting’ treatment at Kent mental health service – BBC …


Abuse is widespread –  it seems to be going on everywhere in the UK as there is no accountability. No way should a nearest relative be constantly dragged to court when there are genuine concerns on treatment and conflict of opinion by professionals.    I can understand this route of action if a nearest relative was convicted of serious abuse for instance but not in the case of a nearest relative who has genuine concerns of a very valid nature. It is wrong how some professionals try and manipulate the law.

I along with other parents would like the right facility provided not an expensive profit making private prison – a facility should have beautiful grounds and no forced drugging. Many people under the MH have suffered extensive abuse and are yet further abused under the current system. 

Particulars of Claim: state “Applicant has consulted with …………sister on 11 July 2017 “she does not want to act as Nearest Relative (please see AHMP’s report attached).  …………………’s father was not consulted because he had in the past made it known that he does not wish to act as Nearest Relative.   THIS IS UNTRUE.   

Elizabeth’s sister was  not even asked. Elizabeth’s sister had written to the Manager of Enfield Comm. Rehab :

“My Dad is going to give you a call at some point either today or early next week to be filled in with information with regards to my sister.  Also when you phoned me last week you did not ask me if I wanted to be nearest relative for my sister.  However, this has been put in the court papers issued to my mother.  You never asked me about this – you just asked if my mum would accept …………..going on a section and you asked about my father but you did not ask me so I suggest you rectify that in your court papers as this is not true”

She responded:


I did not ask you because for you to be Nearest Relative your mother would need to transfer this to you –  it is not for me to give you this responsibility to you.  I hope that is clear I will check the papers to see what you mean.”


I objected to the AHMP appointed as “nominal NR” This person was meant to carry out an investigation into my complaint going back to 2010 at Moti Villa.  Instead she wrote nasty comments and put blame on me for what happened under care provided by them.

I do not feel that the Preliminary Hearing should not have concluded granting nominal NR status to this AHMP as there were so many errors in the court papers.  The case should have been thrown out in my opinion.

I decided to be a  Litigant in Person when I read the shocking comments written in  court papers by the other AHMP (sm)

D… (East Enfield Team) had written her response:

“In the first paragraph she makes reference to “something really bad happened to her” – Police were involved but sadly they could not find the CCTV camera anywhere yet it states in the files there was one and makes reference to this.  ,

“she has twice deliberately got herself in a short space of time recently into hospital” –

Yes and we all know why so there is no point in any more cover-ups.  After we provided proper care in Australia Elizabeth was able to tell us everything.

 “……………….is trying to escape her MOTHER!  Her admissions to hospital have been precipitated by her MOTHER being overbearing and intruding on her personal space.  Frequently going to her accommodation late into the evening/night and refusing to leave when …………………….asks her to do so resulting in a fall-out in which “MUM”   perceives as her being mentally unwell  therefore excusing her own behaviours or respecting that LB has feelings and opinions of her own.  Support staff have regularly noted significant changes in ………………..behaviour and mood following MOTHER’s visits to her flat.      MORE LIES!!!   Just covering up aren’t you!  I have never read such rubbish.   

I can see now reading the files why there was such panic when I appointed Susan Hepburn (Hypnotherapist) as nothing was provided from the Person Centred Approach after 6 months!   I could have found out in just 1 hour what Elizabeth would have liked and then the team could have provided it.   When we took her to Harley Street she could not eat or swallow on nearly 800mg Quetiapine.  When she came out after seeing Susan I was astonished at the miracle we saw  – like a different person – like there was nothing wrong with her.

D stated Elizabeth was found not to have a LD and “best interest” was a placement under MH where she was ABUSED wasn’t she.  However private MH professionals who had Elizabeth live with them for four months would completely disagree with labelling –  totally stigmatizing and only if you live with someone can anything accurate be documented about someone’s “condition” NOT ILLNESS!.


I’ve heard the word “empowerment” plenty of times and “service users finding their own voice” but in actual fact I would call it abuse as Elizabeth was dragged to meeting after meeting with nine professionals flanked by three members of staff,  sprung on her at short notice and she did not wish to attend such meetings.  She was encouraged to tick boxes unrepresented by any advocate and put under pressure by NINE PROFESSIONALS including GP to blame myself and someone else – a friend of the family of serious abuse. The AHMP SM) was involved in this Safeguarding  NO ADVOCATE PRESENT – they were in breach of the Councils Code of Conduct and I have since received an apology letter from Trust and Council.   Wehen I requested the missing minutes the team sent them with everything covered in thick black lines of ink so you could not read anything this must have cost the Council a lot of money in ink.  I thought they were supposed to be short of resources and yet no expense is spared when it comes to taking the NR to court they do not approve of.   There is a pack of lies in those minutes you can imagine.    How nasty can you get.  I am glad that I saw them and I reported them to the Police.

Getting back to the “nominal NR’s” 2010 report:-

it is not the role of staff to do things for LB  –  I turned up one evening to find Elizabeth with sitting alone in darkness as the light bulb had gone and there was no spare lightbulbs. Elizabeth became isolated in a flat surrounded by others with MH problems.  The music from a neighbour’s flat was so loud beneath her causing the floor to vibrate and this bothered Elizabeth.  She goes on to defend:  “the living area may be untidy and disorganised but this is not uncommon for young people without independent life skills of their own age”   NO DM  –  ……………..she could not function on 800mg drugs – COULD YOU???  The flat was squalid, bins overflowing – green potatoes, sink full of washing up.  No money taken from office upstairs to buy healthy food –   “WE CANT BE BOTHERED WITH HER BECAUSE OF THE MOTHER”- so a family friend was told.   Confidentiality is often played upon by staff to cover up when things go wrong but the truth always comes out in the end   “Currently she is in receipt of a self-directed care package requesting that the local authority manages her care and support needs on her behalf.   Yes and is that why nothing was provided after 6 months of Person-Centred Approach ENFIELD COUNCIL?

“To summarise there is a long history of mother making complaints of the same nature in addition to requesting …………….be taken off all medication that direct payments are given.   “Hypnotherapy being harmful that it is not recommended under NICE Guidelines for LB’s nature and degree of mental illness”   RUBBISH!!! ……………….WAS  BADLY ABUSED UNDER CARE PROVIDED BY ENFIELD COUNCIL AND NOW WE ALL KNOW.  MY DAUGHTER WAS DRUGGED TO HILT AND WAS UNABLE TO SPEAK AT THE TIME.  YES I DID REQUEST DIRECT PAYMENTS SO THAT ELIZABETH COULD CHOOSE PEER SUPPORT FRIENDS AND IF MY COMPLAINTS WERE OF THE SAME NATURE THIS IS BECAUSE NOT ONE WAS ANSWERED PROPERLY.


I am tired of professionals who lie to cover up the truth who are unaccountable.  Like many parents – all I want is to see my daughter on as little drugs as possible in the hope that she can eventually be taken off the drugs as she is a trauma victim and needs specialist counselling for what she has been through.   The NHS should have titrated the 2.5mg aripiprazole slowly and gradually  but they did it far too steeply and she suffered chronic pain when off the drug.  Drugs mask the truth and can be used to cover up abuse – they should not be given long term off label against manufacturer’s instructions.  Professionals use coercion, gas lighting, threats and play on confidentiality.  “……………has requested we do not share details with her mother”.     I know how safeguarding works too –  STRICTLY IN THEIR FAVOUR WHILST THEY ATTEMPT TO ISOLATE THE PERSON CONCERNED FROM THEIR FAMILY AND ACCUSE THE FAMILY WRONGLY OF ABUSE USING A VULNERABLE PERSON IN A DESPICABLE WAY AND NOT ONLY WRITING NASTILY ABOUT MYSELF WHO HAS DARED TO CHALLENGE THEM BUT ALSO ABOUT ELIZABETH IN A DAMAGING WAY “THAT’S NOT TRUE MUM” – HER RESPONSE TO SOME OF THEIR COMMENTS.   at such meetings Elizabeth is often asked  “you don’t want your mother to see the files do you”.   But when I was present once at a meeting together with Elizabeth, she was asked if it was OK  to share information and this did not go down too well when she said “OK”  Now they would have Elizabeth in first and then say “she doesn’t want you to see the files”  –  well I have enough files to prove my point.

Judging by the comments written about me I am not popular with the team but I have acquired extensive records – it is a pity they dismiss me and exclude me from open dialogue – if there was an open transparent system I would have no complaints.  If there was inclusion, not exclusion and playing on confidentiality constantly then there would be accurate file records and issues could be resolved and a clear picture gained –  my local area are trialling open dialogue but we have been excluded.

I have been called “that woman

Vexatious complainant but because my complaints were different they could not label me with this so I can see.   Prolific –  well that is understandable when you get fobbed off with the same old letters from the CEO and she has not even replied to one relating to the time when Elizabeth was denied “medication” in breach of Art 3.

Nothing is done fairly, they stick together to defend one another and give my complaint to the department to which the complaint is all about –  I find this very amusing.

Money is being misspent on providing the wrong kind of facility – there seems to be no end of money to take people to court like myself to get rid of them.

Just because they are paying for the facility should not be reason for these professionals to treat someone in such a degrading manner.

Hearing people discuss you in another room for instance negatively – all this contributed to Elizabeth not settling from the beginning but she is settled now but the result was she is currently on a CTO.   The date this took place was on 19 Sep 2017 so she was held quite some time on Suffolk Ward on a section 3.   The care coordinator is described as “new” but she is far from new as she goes back to when Elizabeth was at Cambian.

Outcome of Court Hearing:

The Judge wanted to meet Elizabeth to hear what she wanted which I thought was extremely fair.  It is disgraceful how the Council treated Elizabeth not providing her with a copy of the court papers like an object rather than a person and it was ordered that a capacity assessment be arranged but because I had no trust whatsoever in the AHMPs I insisted upon an independent capacity assessment and Elizabeth was found to have capacity.

It was proposed by LBE the interim order shall continue.     Elizabeth had been treated like she was invisible by Enfield MH and I was very pleased with the Judge’s comments that he wanted her included in proceedings. 

Parties to cooperate (as agreed by His Honour Judge ………) for the patient to be joined to the proceedings Capacity Assessment to be carried out asap”

Dr S visited on a Sunday during the time that I was visiting and carried out the assessment –   Elizabeth did very well in this Assessment.  Elizabeth had appointed solicitors of her own.  They advised her to choose her sister as NR as I would lose in court and get all the costs.  Elizabeth agreed and her sister agreed to act as NR and because I was threatened with enormous costs I backed out delegating my role as NR to her sister.  Although it was said this was what Elizabeth wanted in terms of NR there is no way she would have done this if she was not advised to go for displacement of me as NR putting me in the position of not wishing to fight for this role any longer in court where it would be likely I would not stand a chance but I wanted to prove my point that professionals were covering up something very serious that happened under their care and I feel that the treatment of my daughter has been abusive by certain professionals.

As a litigant in person I felt I was at a disadvantage.  Huntercombe ignored my request for the assessment report and refused to give it stating I needed solicitors.  They have also refused to give the report to Elizabeth and we have jointly complained to the ICO about this.

I was put under pressure to back out of court proceedings so I wrote to the Judge explaining I felt I had no choice in the matter.

The Council had sent me a Consent Order trying to try to get me to agree to their costs of up to £5K.  “The Respondent shall agree to pay the Applicant’s costs” I crossed this bit out but was afraid about continuing with the case as much as I wanted to

On 3rd October last year I was invited to a meeting with Enfield Community Rehab Manager/care coordinator and AHMP who took me to court for displacement.   I attended this meeting along with younger daughter and a friend.  We asked if we could record this important meeting but were told by the manager it was against their human rights.  What about our human rights not to be documented in such a nasty manner and accurate things documented in the files.   This is biased in my opinion.  There is no law that says you cannot record and especially in light of the fact that so many damaging things have been said that cannot be erased from their records and this again is wrong.    It was mentioned that Enfield Council’s Legal Team suggested to allow having someone she knew (apart from me) as NR.  The Council agreed to the delegation of  NR to her sister but this was meant to be granted only for the duration of the CTO but what I did not realise was that underlying the CTO was a S3 –  I knew this S3 had expired but I did not know that the S3 could just be renewed and was constantly underlying the CTO so my signature on the accompanying delegation form was only meant to be until the date CTO was due to expire middle of March 2018.   Elizabeth has now settled well into the community and there is no reason for her to be on a CTO but I fear what they will do is act unfairly and keep on renewing it.  For the first renewal is six months and thereafter 12 years at a time and people are stuck on CTOs that have unfair conditions attached to them.  For instance that person may have the freedom to come and go when they like unrestricted as they are of NO RISK TO SELF OR OTHERS. However, that person has no front door key and has to be back by a certain time because staff sleep through the night and no one would hear that person knocking on the door.  The door bell has still not been repaired and I hope the boiler has that packed up over the weekend.  Elizabeth has been allowed to spend time with other family members over Xmas but leading up to this she was anxious – Elizabeth gets anxious when it comes to going somewhere new at first and she was also excited at the same time.  Everything went so well over Xmas and she came back really happy.

I think without doubt the MHA needs to be amended -the sooner the better.

Activities section of the Care Plan is all about Medication – the employees are not nurses/doctors yet Elizabeth is expected to discuss with staff ensuring she understands why she is being asked to take medication -staff to encourage Elizabeth to take medication – staff to explain the benefits and importance of taking medication for her mental wellbeing and recovery – staff to discuss any mixed feelings (ambivalence) she may have about taking medication.  Current Medication is Risperidone tablet mg at night –  YOU ARE NEGLIGENTLY IGNORING THAT ELIZABETH WAS PREVIOUSLY TAKEN OFF THIS DRUG.  HER BACK IS COVERED WITH A RASH AND SHE HAS BEEN TO THE DOCTORS AS SHE HAS BEEN SUFFERING FROM CONSTIPATION YOU ARE IGNORING ELIZABETH’S PHYSICAL HEALTH AND THE DRUG SHOULD BE REDUCED AS IT IS OF NO BENEFIT AND HER DIAGNOSIS FROM OTHER DOCTORS DISPUTES THE LABEL LOCALLY. LIVING WITH MH PROFESSIONALS FOR FOUR MONTHS – NOT ONE OF THEM THOUGHT THAT ELIZABETH HAD SCHIZOPHRENIA.    

The people who have entered the diagnosis details are new names who have not been involved in past care – don’t know if they are social workers and I cannot believe what inaccuracy they have documented and could prove it.  I am stunned by what I am reading here especially an entry dated 01 Jun 2017.  I am disgusted by the comments of multiple drug – this is not true at all.  The only people I could accuse of multiple drug abuse is Enfield Barnet and Haringey MH Trust and I have the files to prove it.  The diagnosis details are a pack of lies – she has never been alcohol dependent – there is some really disturbing things said by complete strangers who are not familiar with the case.  The comments I am reading are heartbreaking.  There is no reference to their own failure they have ripped to pieces my daughter’s character – how nasty can you get.

 “Elizabeth to remain and live at her 24 hr supported accommodation and engage with her support workers”  –  “Elizabeth’s mother or family not to remove her from the supported accommodation or terminate her tenancy without agreement with ENFIELD COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH TEAM.  This is hilarious “Elizabeth or her mother or family members to discuss any concerns they may have about her placement at supported accommodation with her care coordinator and community mental health team.”  YES AND THEY TOTALLY IGNORE US LIKE WE ARE DIRT AND WE HAVE BEEN TREATED LIKE DIRT BY THIS PARTICULAR TEAM (ENFIELD COMMUNITY REHAB) .  If she refuses medication staff at ………………….. to report for intervention.   So the accommodation is provided by ENFIELD CCG and Local Authority at £551 per week  – personal budget of £244.44 pw  but I suspect this could much more than this – more like £2000 per week because there is care on top in the form of support workers and what about the drugs.  If you total it all up the actual figure is far more.

To begin with after so long on acute wards Elizabeth found it hard to settle in the community at this scheme.  There was no water or toilet facilities running when she arrived.  She was the only person at this new scheme with one support worker who I thought was brilliant but they got rid of her.  Elizabeth has been advised to attend their centre in Park Avenue but Elizabeth has said “I don’t want to attend I prefer to do my own activities and don’t want other activities to be imposed on me. She has never heard voices yet this is recorded in the report.    It is clear on reading this report that it is NOT my daughter who has the personality disorders and all these labels –  what is wrong with these people who wish to bully, rip someone’s character apart in such a nasty defamatory manner.  How would they like it.  The Past History is completely wrong and has not been amended.   They have failed to monitor Elizabeth whilst on Clozapine as she had stopped smoking when she came home.   They failed to check the file records otherwise they would have noticed that she was allergic to this drug.   Nearly everything is reported wrongly and totally negative.   If the doctors and team were to include and liaise with the family I would not be so unhappy but when you read such comments it is really disturbing and when someone else from another team picks up the file records they are totally misleading.  I wish they would get things right but the mistakes and errors in what I am looking at right now are unbelievable.

It is bad the way people like my daughter are treated.  They are treated like they are sub-human/objects and at the age of 31 no front door key has been provided.  It is absolutely degrading.   She is treated like a child but it is better than a prison locked ward facility full of distressed patients not getting the right care. However as she has no furniture we have ordered her some and have been told by the care coordinator that we will not be reimbursed a penny.   We were told to cancel the order by the owner, the manager of the scheme and care coordinator.    But it cant be cancelled.  We did not just go ahead without asking in the first place.  Why is there no communication.   I am just completely ignored like I am invisible.   The team only contact Elizabeth’s and do not speak to me or include me at all.

I often wish Elizabeth had stayed in Australia rather than come back to this Country who treat vulnerable people terribly.  Sadly I am not alone.   My experience is echoed by so many nationwide who are trapped either in prison-like hospitals or dumped into the community or prisons without proper support or understanding and a CTO is not meant to be restricting but it is –  it is saying “we are providing the accommodation – we are in charge of you – you do as you are told or else –  all about medication not about care and the right kind of therapy or choice –  There is no mention of the many things that have gone wrong under their care –  there is only negativity and appalling labels of no scientific meaning.  There are scathing attacks on my daughter behind her back in the most nasty manner.

A CTO is like a prison sentence – it is State punishment, incarcerating and controlling people so they have no choice in where they can live – deprived of liberty.  They can be bullied by staff with threats of being forcibly returned to hospital if they do not take medication or do as they are told.  It is about treating disabled vulnerable people in a degrading, undignified manner like second class citizens – treating adults like children.     It is all about business and profitable too as a scheme such as this can cost thousands per week.    There are two other residents at this scheme and support workers who are there night and day who learn about prescribing etc on line.

I hope that the law concerning DoLs, CTOs and Nearest Relative is reviewed – the current MHA is not fit for purpose and needs urgent amendment in my opinion and that of many others I am in touch with.   A CTO is degrading and restricting and a new approach is needed.   The amount of money that is wasted on taking the NR to court rather than communicating properly and bothering to work together in an open manner.  To deprive someone’s liberty is the most disturbing thing of all and something needs to be done about it.

The court system is geared in favour of the Professionals who are giving harmful treatment which should only be used in the first instance in extreme circumstances.

The reason we cannot accept any diagnoses through ENFIELD MH is simply because these have been used to cover up the most terrible abuse to my daughter under their care by “treatment” of drugging enormously and I objected to the Council’s Nominal NR having read her report not just going back to 2010.  I gave substantial evidence in court.

So you are forced to delegate the role of NR rather than face enormous costs in court.  Where is the justice?   especially if the NR has a good point as to why the Council would not make suitable NR.











%d bloggers like this: