• Replies 1 reply
  • Subscribers 67 subscribers
  • Views 656 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related
Hints and tips
  • To quote someone's message, first select/highlight the relevant text, and then use the Quote button that appears
  • To "mention" someone, type @ followed by the start of the forum name, and choose from the list; that person will get a notification of being mentioned

In the Interests of Justice my autistic Son needs a Human Rights Barrister to defend his Article 8 H.R's against an Article 5 impending Order to be sought in the C o P.

NAS38972

My autistic son is acknowledged by the Local Authority in a report of theirs and also in an Independent Mental Health report to have the best of Care here in his home where he has lived all of his life since birth.These are part of Documents they will no doubt present to the CoP.

But Now The L.A. are claiming they have to have an Human Rights Act Article 5 Court of Protection Deprivation of Liberty Order (DoL) over my son, because my son needs 24x7 care. and has to be accompanied when out.  This has been the case since birth. This is absolutely against his Article 8 Human Rights, and I expect ours his Unpaiid Family Carers of Last resort as well.  

They Will Allow My son to live here as before. They have failed my son absolutely. Since He was transferred to adult services.

The L.A. Officer then at a meeting after I had explained the Care he needs told me I was threatening her,  so my wife and I left her meeting. Later this same officer Kyboshed  a training placement I had secured for him. 

During his last two years at his school I requested the L.A. to Let my son be residential as was the rest of his class, this was to prepare him for the Training Places that was later kyboshed as before.

A residential place was obtained at his school, but the L.A. Dug in their heels and refused it. I said I will appeal, to avoid this the L.A. Education Authority refused to make a decision, as an officer said she would do so.

The Ombudsman's office said they I could not appeal a non decision.

The L.A. E.A. Lied in documents stating they were waiting for his specialist's doctors report, This they already had.

They issued a decision after 18 months or so of course it was a waste of time. and useless to his lost two years education.

I never the less obtained a training place and grants that would eventually have morphed into being residential, with any of his previous classmates of 12 years who also went to the same facility, as well as others. But this was Kyboshed as above.

This left my son at home with no help, completely off the L.A. Books and being looked after by us his Unpaid Carers of Last resort.

He was not on any medication. I personally was under a great deal of Stress by the L.A. on a completely separate matter.  

My sons behaviors gradually became worse and eventually was prescribed Risperidone.

The L.A. after several years Started with 0.5 day/week respite gradually to 5 day weekly, All of their placements failed until 6 years ago I had to take over using the direct payments Act. and employed 2 Carers full time for 35 hrs a week, but after 2 years it was becoming obvious they were going to leave, and it would have perhaps my son at risk should I have started to advertise their jobs.

After they resigned I requested The L.A. help me with a better contracts of employment as I had had problems. The L.A. withheld all the funding. on the say so of the social worker.  It was a good job I had some reserves when these ran down after a year as I continued with his respite as before 42 nights a year.  I had Meetings after meetings after meetings to no avail.

The L.A. Restarted paying for the respite but the funding for carers is still being withheld, it must total 100k so far.  

Not only is it against our family's rights, My son who has never Committed any Crime will have the same status as Madman to be locked away, For ever. A life sentence. They could ship him anywhere they deemed fit. Especially if it saved Money. 

Should my son die, even at home here with a DoL order . The Coroner will State " That death occurred whilst in Legal detention".

This applies to every autistic person being "in care". They could in theory be shipped anywhere to save money.

Did you hear the Radio 4 "File on 4" BBC i player app for 7th October 2018 Transforming Care is it working, of how autistic people can be locked away miles from home.

There is also the "Winterbourne Report easy read". if you google that to see what can happen to autistic people like my son.

Parents

  • Welcome.

    I'm sorry to hear about the terrible treatment that you and your son have received. The transition to his adulthood is surely hard enough for all of you without the loss of the supports that you've needed to rely on.

    Before I go on, I should point out that I'm not a barrister; what I know of DoL comes from people who I know who cared for elderly people with dementia, and from a little reading around to make sure that nothing's changed too much. It may not be what you want to hear, but it is as accurate a summary as I can make it - hopefully others will be able to check that I'm right.

    DoL authorisation is usually something which a care home or other provider requests from the LA. It grants the care provider, not the LA, permission to restrict movement, watch and accompany, and make decisions for someone in their care. It is not considered a detention, or a general authorisation to detain, in the same way that a Mental Health Act detention would be. The official intent is to check that the care provider is not abusing the human rights of the patient (though, of course, it may not achieve this if granted without good reason, needs are badly assessed, or it is not checked up on and enforced.) A new DoL is needed if the care provider or care arrangements are changed.

    NAS38972 said:
    But Now The L.A. are claiming they have to have an Human Rights Act Article 5 Court of Protection Deprivation of Liberty Order (DoL) over my son, because my son needs 24x7 care. and has to be accompanied when out.

    This is correct, but possibly not in the way that you think.

    When the patient is cared for at home, things work slightly differently. Because it is you (or carers appointed by you) who gives your son 24 hour care and accompany him at all times when outside, HR law says that you are potentially depriving him of his liberty, and that the LA is legally obliged to make sure that you are doing this legally, and in his best interests. (yes, I know that probably sounds very messed up!)

    In this case, the LA must apply for a DoL order so that you, not they, have legal permission to limit his movement, make decisions for him etc., and this has to be agreed by the CoP, not just authorised by the LA itself as it would be for a care home. The DoL order would only cover whatever arrangement is agreed by the court. So as long as it only covers the situation where he is living at home and still cared for by you, it will not grant the LA any other power to detain him or change his care arrangements unless the CoP agrees it. A DoL order like this has to be renewed at least every year.

    You are certainly right to do everything that you can to ensure that the DoL application is assessed fairly, and that it approves only the arrangements that will be best for your son. However, legally, you may need there to be an appropriate DoL order so that your son can stay with you, as not having one could legally oblige the LA to make other arrangements with a care provider for which they can simply authorise DoL without involving the CoP.  Since, as you say, the LA probably cynically see you as the cheapest option, they'd probably prefer a DoL order allowing your son to stay at home, and the fact that they are applying to the CoP suggests that this is the case.

    Still an awful situation, and you should certainly seek legal advice, but maybe not quite as bad as you thought.

Reply

  • Welcome.

    I'm sorry to hear about the terrible treatment that you and your son have received. The transition to his adulthood is surely hard enough for all of you without the loss of the supports that you've needed to rely on.

    Before I go on, I should point out that I'm not a barrister; what I know of DoL comes from people who I know who cared for elderly people with dementia, and from a little reading around to make sure that nothing's changed too much. It may not be what you want to hear, but it is as accurate a summary as I can make it - hopefully others will be able to check that I'm right.

    DoL authorisation is usually something which a care home or other provider requests from the LA. It grants the care provider, not the LA, permission to restrict movement, watch and accompany, and make decisions for someone in their care. It is not considered a detention, or a general authorisation to detain, in the same way that a Mental Health Act detention would be. The official intent is to check that the care provider is not abusing the human rights of the patient (though, of course, it may not achieve this if granted without good reason, needs are badly assessed, or it is not checked up on and enforced.) A new DoL is needed if the care provider or care arrangements are changed.

    NAS38972 said:
    But Now The L.A. are claiming they have to have an Human Rights Act Article 5 Court of Protection Deprivation of Liberty Order (DoL) over my son, because my son needs 24x7 care. and has to be accompanied when out.

    This is correct, but possibly not in the way that you think.

    When the patient is cared for at home, things work slightly differently. Because it is you (or carers appointed by you) who gives your son 24 hour care and accompany him at all times when outside, HR law says that you are potentially depriving him of his liberty, and that the LA is legally obliged to make sure that you are doing this legally, and in his best interests. (yes, I know that probably sounds very messed up!)

    In this case, the LA must apply for a DoL order so that you, not they, have legal permission to limit his movement, make decisions for him etc., and this has to be agreed by the CoP, not just authorised by the LA itself as it would be for a care home. The DoL order would only cover whatever arrangement is agreed by the court. So as long as it only covers the situation where he is living at home and still cared for by you, it will not grant the LA any other power to detain him or change his care arrangements unless the CoP agrees it. A DoL order like this has to be renewed at least every year.

    You are certainly right to do everything that you can to ensure that the DoL application is assessed fairly, and that it approves only the arrangements that will be best for your son. However, legally, you may need there to be an appropriate DoL order so that your son can stay with you, as not having one could legally oblige the LA to make other arrangements with a care provider for which they can simply authorise DoL without involving the CoP.  Since, as you say, the LA probably cynically see you as the cheapest option, they'd probably prefer a DoL order allowing your son to stay at home, and the fact that they are applying to the CoP suggests that this is the case.

    Still an awful situation, and you should certainly seek legal advice, but maybe not quite as bad as you thought.

Children
No Data