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:

http://www.enfieldccg.nhs.uk/profiles/ray-james/10588I.   https://www.england.nhs.uk/2017/10/nhs-england-appoints-senior-local-government-leader-as-national-learning-disability-director/

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 ……..it 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 “………………..be 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”.    

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAnVi3Zuay4    –  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.












Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: