Archive

Monthly Archives: November 2020

Secure Accommodation Orders | Child Protection Resource

https://childprotectionresource.online/category/secure-accommodation-orders

Duty to inform parents and to keep secure accommodation under review. Regulation 14 provides: Where a child to whom section 25 of the Act applies is kept in secure accommodation in a community home and it is intended that an application will be made to a court to keep the child in that accommodation, the local authority which are looking after the child shall if practicable inform of that …

Deprivation of liberty | Child Protection Resource

https://childprotectionresource.online/tag/deprivation-of-liberty

Presumption of Capacity.All adults have the right to make decisions for themselves unless it can be shown that they are unable to make them. You can’t assume someone can’t make decisions just because they have a particular disability.

As the Nearest Relative to my daughter Elizabeth I have received notification of a Hearing to take place tomorrow. I had thought I was exercising my right to appeal against renewal of Section 3 of the MHA which is now coming to an end. Today has been a dreadful day. First of all Elizabeth phoned me and told me that she was advised she had to have a solicitor appointed through the hospital because there is a Section 25 Hearing tomorrow. I was alarmed because Elizabeth already had a very good solicitor appointed. I am always deeply concerned when solicitors are displaced by the hospital in favour of recommended solicitors. I telephoned the MHA Office of Chase Farm Hospital and Elizabeth said she was not happy and felt pressurised and with a new firm of solicitors appointed, recommended by the hospital, on the very day of the tribunal itself, how could Elizabeth be treated fairly. How could they have gained any knowledge of the case at the last minute? I also found out that having only just received the paperwork for this Hearing it is a Tribunal relating to Section 25 where Elizabeth could end up in a secure care home with no contact with her family. Elizabeth wants to go back to her flat and has made that clear.

I was up all night long altering and amending their reports for the Hearing. I can honestly say they were full of error and written deliberately to fail the tribunal. Behind your back they can rip you to pieces and to think these are supposed to be caring and kind professionals. It is sad to say they do this not just to the parent/carer but to a vulnerable person making them look so bad and contradicting themselves in the process. They have made out Elizabeth is dangerous and too dangerous to be in the company of her mother which is absolute rubbish because I have been granted leave for the past two days and there is no way this is true so why write such lies?

I’ve already mentioned past history is wrong and nothing has been done to rectify this.

I’ve already mentioned they have been giving wrong medication previously found to be allergic to and depriving Elizabeth of an autism assessment and failing to acknowledge that she has complex PTSD because she was multiply abused under their care.

The issue is Elizabeth has an independent council flat and it would appear they do not want her to have this flat. She has been visited by the RC of Suffolk Ward who tried to coerce her into going into a care home and Elizabeth who has FULL CAPACITY on where she wants to live said no to the care home and she wants to go back to her flat. Whilst there were problems which did lead to Elizabeth calling police and they called ambulance this was the fault of her care coordinator and ENFIELD COMMUNITY REHAB as if they could not find suitable care her mother and NR most certainly could and JR solicitors said we had a good case but then unlawful paperwork was drawn up to section Elizabeth because they were forced to produce their care plan full of error. There was also mention by the RC of Suffolk Ward of a rehab facility (presumably locked) but Elizabeth did not wish to go to such a place wherever that could be. After all who can blame her. She has been sent here there and everywhere under Barnet Enfield and Haringey MH Trust and has told me how awful her treatment has been.

So it is one thing having awful treatment but it is another thing when the Mental Health Act fails to protect vulnerable people. So they have put Elizabeth on depot injections and this is the issue. Elizabeth does not like taking the medication but has agreed not to stop it abruptly. Elizabeth went downhill through WITHDRAWAL SYNDROME, not illness, when she stopped the drugs cold turkey. Now she is on depot injections depixol and this is why they want her locked away as a matter of convenience and for her liberty to be deprived in a secure care home. The last care home was Phoenix House rated good by the CQC but I can prove this but Elizabeth had no food at the weekend. They refused to give the Clozapine when requested when Elizabeth wanted to stay at home and this led to Elizabeth being without this drug for FOUR not two days. My story “Get her back we are paying for that” describes what we went through – First of all “Deprival of medication community care” Irwin Mitchell then Court of Protection deprival of liberty and forced return to a care home where Elizabeth had NO FOOD AT THE WEEKEND. PHOENIX HOUSE STEPPING STONES NORTHAMPTON. I very much respect the Court of Protection who treated us fairly on two occasions and if they had forced my daughter to return to this dreadful place she would have continued to be without food at the weekend. I was not happy that an expensive report by a Consultant Psychiatrist appointed by Enfield LA had huge error. The report found Elizabeth to have capacity but stated the wrong Council as Applicant and I complained about this quite rightly so. Why should any other council be named in a case associated with deprival of medication community care leading to DoLs and forced return to a care home where Elizabeth suffered abuse and neglect. The team behind this was ENFIELD COMMUNITY REHAB TEAM and in my previous blog where Mehdi Veisi and Amanda Pitman have accused me of being aggressive, abusive, you name it and labelled me as vexatious complainant I have been given only two points of contact which are Pals where the email address bounces back and you cannot get through on the phone and the other name is Lucy Omezi of Enfield Community Rehab. This has led to me having no choice but to write on my blog and on Twitter.

Anyway, Court of Protection case was in 2014. Then I was taken to court again to the RcJ in 2017 at such short notice I was not given the correct court details. I had rushed to get up to the court and was guided to the wrong court but they displaced me as NR behind my back then I went to visit my daughter in hospital at Chase Farm, Suffolk Ward and the nominated AMHP told me to leave the visitors room and announced LONDON BOROUGH OF ENFIELD were now the Nearest Relative “lets face it your mother is not fit for this role” – words to this effect. I felt the same about her as she knew something had happened to Elizabeth at Moti Villa yet tried to blame Elizabeth’s frequent hospital admissions on me when there were massive problems at this scheme and drug dealers on site. I was then called to the next Hearing at RcJ. This time I was properly notified of the correct court and this AMHP DM remained as nominal NR, pending the fact the Judge wanted to meet Elizabeth who was treated like she was invisible. Elizabeth had to undergo a capacity assessment and was found to have capacity. This was done properly and independently not by social workers who can say a pack of lies behind your back. I attended a further hearing where the Judge said she must undergo that capacity hearing. Then the nominal NR appointed by LB Enfield gave the Judge some papers in the Hearing and the Judge asked if I had seen them to which I replied no. Two social workers under Enfield had visited Elizabeth when she was not well and presented the result of their interview to the Judge. It was my first time representing myself in court and I thoroughly enjoyed representing myself. The judge even complimented me on the vast evidence I produced as to why LONDON BOROUGH OF ENFIELD would not make suitable NR. I took their piece following that negative interview and I corrected it and forwarded it to the Judge’s clerk. This caused uproar and I was told this was not the correct procedure but then how could it have been the correct procedure for this social worker to hand such nasty comments to the Judge in such an underhand way. I was then threatened with £5000 in a consent order and that if the court case went ahead further I was warned I would get enormous costs. I was then forced to delegate my role for a term. So my two daughters were approached by my daughter’s solicitors R N Law in this connection. Elizabeth was told that her mother would get enormous costs if she did not choose an alternative NR and then my younger daughter was approached also along these lines. Social services were told to call a meeting which I attended and two others from the family. The Manager of Enfield Community Rehab stated that it was considered fairer for a family member to be appointed as NR rather than their nominated AMHP who went right back to 2011 when Elizabeth was multiply abused at her scheme in the community. Anyway I realised when the term of the section had expired and on checking with the RcJ that I was in fact NR I then requested Elizabeth’s release. Then they tried to send me another consent order but I just crossed through the paragraph that said I would be liable for £5000 costs. Why should I be liable for costs when they dragged me to court.

Now I am alarmed that there is yet further threat by Barnet Enfield and Haringey MH Trust and Enfield Council.

There is a nothing but error/nasty comments in their files for tomorrow’s Hearing which I requested to be cancelled because Chase Farm Hospital will not release all the reports. So far I have corrected the Addendum to Dr M’s report at Elysium and the Social Circumstances Report by her care coordinator PM based at Enfield Community Rehab. There was so many errors it took me all night to correct one report.

So I do not wish this Section 25 Tribunal to go ahead because Chase Farm Hospital have refused files.

Complaints have been sent by more than one person and I myself am going to complain also. This shows how Hearings behind closed doors can be rigged to go against you especially when the court decides to exclude a very important witness such as a McKenzie Friend that both Elizabeth and I would like to attend.

So my solicitor has complained. Elizabeth’s solicitor contacted the courts and tribunals service today as Elizabeth who has FULL CAPACITY wanted HER solicitor not one appointed by Chase Farm Hospital.

I have spent two wonderful days with my daughter after being apart from her for 6 months with hardly any contact. I took her yesterday to various appointments. We went to the chiropodist as Elizabeth could hardly walk prior to first lockdown and I managed to get her an emergency appointment as Elizabeth was in agony and suffering much pain. That was all sorted and yesterday’s appointment was just for a check-up. We then went to Specsavers and Elizabeth had to get her eyes tested and we paid extra for a more intensive investigation. Throughout these appointments, the latter which took a long time, Elizabeth was calm and pleasant. Same today when I picked her up from Chase Farm Hospital to take her to her flat and for lunch. Two days running and no problems what so ever with Elizabeth’s behaviour and a pleasant time spent together.

So you can imagine how I feel that a team of professionals are trying to stop Elizabeth from going back to her flat and are describing her as “dangerous” and a threat to me as a mother which is untrue.

Such comments are fictitious, showing LACK OF INSIGHT and are COMPLETELY UNTRUE. The Hearing reports are misleading and written to fail the tribunal and there is nothing but errors contained therein.

How can you hope to succeed in a Tribunal that is closed to the public and held in secret. Three members on a panel – Judge, doctor and lay person which must cost a fortune.

They are worried about Elizabeth managing in her flat but today she impressed me as was able to cook herself something – had not forgotten how to do things and she would not be on her own as I will stay with her overnight.

What would have been nice is if respite at a care farm could have been provided as Elizabeth likes animals.

Elizabeth was so thrilled to see her cat and the pigeons that visit her flat balcony.

They claim to know us as a family but these professionals do not include family at meetings and make false assumptions producing one report after another wrong and misleading.

This is why we need Open Dialogue but only some areas of the UK welcome change. I will never forget Elizabeth and I taking part in Open Dialogue with professionals who wish for positive change. Elizabeth started off the discussion all about how she was taken to the court of protection in 2014. Like I say I have nothing but respect for this court as far as we are concerned.

I do not know whether the Hearing tomorrow can be postponed as Section 3 ends on 4 December and if this was a fair area, they would suggest voluntary stay on the ward whilst the Tribunal is held at a later date when they finally produce the paperwork they have refused to give to my solicitors.

I think it is good that i am allowed to take Elizabeth to her flat and she is thrilled with all the improvements since she has been imprisoned here there and everywhere for the past 6 months without any leave up until now.

What I would like to see. I would like to see Elizabeth home for Xmas. I would like to take Elizabeth to Norfolk where other family members live. It is said when both the care coordinator and RC of Suffolk Ward, Community Rehab want her to go into care and secure care. This is not what we as a family want. It is not what Elizabeth wants.

Whilst Elizabeth cannot come off the injections she is forced to take, these should be slowly and gradually reduced. Sadly Elizabeth is in this position because she took herself off cold turkey Risperidone previously found to be allergic to.

I would like Elizabeth to be treated fairly most of all and not be put in a position by these professionals where I can never see my daughter again. They are so very wrong in what they are doing. They have destroyed my happiness and my life.

At 08.24 this morning, I had a call from a social worker I have never heard of before called Kate and she did not say what she wanted and we were cut off in no time. No questions or discussions were voiced in terms of what she wanted. When tried to telephone back I received no answer so I got someone else to contact her in my household who was witness to her original call. So 08.31 was the time of the outgoing call and what was disturbing is that Kate did not say what she wanted and made out that it was ME who telephoned her and that she was responding to my call? Never heard of this person but have kept her phone number nonetheless.

In the circumstances and certainly bearing in mind our past experience of social workers under MH, it is very alarming to get a call from someone who claims to be a social worker, who makes out I contacted her in the first place which is not true and then denies phoning me in the first place when I was getting someone else to return the call to find out what she wanted.

Anyway, there may be some relevance to all of this and that awaits to be seen but from a family who have been bullied left right and centre by social services and bearing in mind current situation as regards Elizabeth and everything to do with this it is MOST ALARMING.

All I mentioned was that Elizabeth had been deprived a CTR (Community Treatment Review) and about some safeguarding issues re some of the care that had been provided under private sector most recently.

Anyway absolutely nothing else was discussed about anything to do with Elizabeth’s current situation and the social worker did not ask me one single question and this was all witnessed.

Anybody who has had brutal dealings with social workers who are supposed to help would understand why I am concerned.

Elizabeth has twice now been sectioned unlawfully under Barnet Enfield and Haringey MH Trust.

When a section comes to an end, a social worker is supposed to consult with the Nearest Relative. So we have no idea what on earth Kate B wanted.

Like I say two phone calls:

Her incoming call at 08.24 am – 1 minute

Outgoing call by witness at 08.31 am – 5 minutes.

During the latter call the witness requested to know why she was calling and she said “I am calling to return the call from SB”.

THAT IS NOT TRUE SO WHAT DID KATE WANT? For the record Kate did not say what she wanted.

TW v LB Enfield [2013] EWHC 1180 (QB), [2013] MHLO 59 …

https://mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/TW_v_LB_Enfield_(2013)_EWHC_1180_(QB…

TW v LB Enfield [2013] EWHC 1180 (QB), [2013] MHLO 59 The applicant argued that her nearest relative ought to have been consulted (under s11 ) before her s3 detention: she required leave of the High Court under s139 (2) to bring a claim against the local authority, and sought a declaration of incompatibility.

Unfortunately Elizabeth has been unlawfully detained twice and as a Litigant in Person with me acting as a McKenzie Friend Elizabeth challenged her unlawful section of 16 hours.

Elizabeth received a cheque for just £1 in compensation.

More recently Elizabeth was detained unlawfully for about 5 days – She has not yet challenged this but out of interest surely the compensation should amount to MORE than just £1. I will find out and let you know.

However this shows just how bad things are in terms of human rights for vulnerable people under MH care and their families.

39 Essex Chambers | Bostridge v Oxleas NHS Foundation …

The Court of Appeal has dismissed the appeal in the case of Bostridge v Oxleas NHS Foundation Trust, confirming that the principles set down in the immigration detention context in Lumba v Secretary of State for the Home Department UKSC 12 (Lumba) and Kambadzi v Secretary of State for the Home Department UKSC 23 (Kambadzi) also apply to claims for false imprisonment/breach of Article 5 ECHR …

Where are the human rights in the UK?

It is disgusting in my opinion that vulnerable people can be treated in such a way in the UK whereas anyone else would have stood more chance of justice if they were unlawfully detained.

Weightmans Solicitors were involved in the case of unlawful detention and the compensation of £1 – if errors are made this shows how unaccountable things are and that the law is not there to protect the weak and vulnerable.

Social workers should be there to help but that is not the case as I have seen from safeguarding where Trust and Council were forced to apologise a while back and also when they wish to force return someone to a care home they happen to be paying for in order to deprive liberty and enforce a CTO which only strengthens a team’s scope to bully with threat of recall. CTOs should be abolished. The only social workers in Enfield who have been kind were those that were involved in my father’s care from the Adults Division. There were two exceptional social workers but from our experience there are some who give everyone a bad name and that applies to doctors and nurses too.

This is when they can become nasty. My blog explains how they can deprive medication to force return to a care home rated good by CQC where Elizabeth had no food at the weekend.

I wish to praise the COURT OF PROTECTION for their decision and their support.

https://psychiatricabuseuk.com/2017/08/10/get-her-back-were-paying-for-that/

It was FOUR days not two days without the drug. To think an entire team of professionals stuck together and deprived the drug Clozapine and I made every effort to get it despite the fact I was not happy with the “treatment”.

We had two weeks of hell with social services coming in to the family home and reporting for court purposes and trying to carry out a capacity assessment in front of my carers who were all horrified.

Here is a further example of the “care” my daughter has received:

From Psychiatrist ID To LO and EJ cc EA

30.05.2014 at 17.05

Subject Elizabeth Bevis

“A was advised by the HTT that EB would not be available to meet us this afternoon but as planned we attended her home.

We were advised by a man who said he was a lodger that EB doesn’t seem to be at home. We therefore did not have the opportunity to carry out the assessment.”

Regards ID Consultant Psychiatrist Enfield Community Rehab Team 65C Park Avenue Bush Hill Park Enfield EN1 2HL

I received a call from Elizabeth and her sister whilst I was at work. Elizabeth’s sister said they were hiding in a cupboard and that they were terrified and that they had asked my lodger at the time to say they were out as Elizabeth did not want to see them and neither did her sister.

“From LO sent 30 May 2014 at 17.27

to ID, JE and EA

Subject Elizabeth Bevis

Dear I

Thanks for informing me I have spoken to A about this I will relate the issue with the legal team.

lO”

Community Rehab Team Manager /AMHP

%d bloggers like this: