Main menu
Case Ref. number: CA-
Chronology
01.08.2022.
1. 28 May 1986. P was born with Cerebral Palsy. She developed
normally, except mobility. Following several surgeries on her
legs, she was left with heart palpitations.
2. There were no other physical or mental health problems ever
mentioned or recorded.
3. P was born into Soviet Russia and grew up into a newly opened
Russia of great change.
4. August 1997. LM and P came to Britain. LM had been
appointed as a volunteer housemother in a residential care
setting where people with various mental and physical needs
lived in family groups. This was part of the Camphill
Communities organisation. Here she met and married RM who
had worked in the establishment for ten years.
5. In 1998 and after contract for voluntary work was finished we
went back to Russia as a family, but after a few months and
careful consideration we decided to settle in England. First in
Kent, but moved later to the North East, because of affordable
house prises.
6. P was not happy in a British school, due to the disruptive
behaviour of classmates, and being taught at a much lower
level than she was capable of. This led to unsettlement in P.
She lacked confidence in tackling new things. Also she
becomes a teenager. At one point she became reclusive. It
happened for a very short period. She spent couple of weeks in
a hospital in Krasnodar, while staying on holiday at her
grandma’s, but at no time were mental health problems
diagnosed or treated. It must be remembered that the Russian
Healthcare system is very different to our own. Any person can
ask for, and be allowed to occupy a hospital bed for a few
weeks to maintain health, but without obvious symptoms.
People benefit from a short break being cared for instead of
carrying on as we do, until an emergency arises.
7. June 2003. As a family we decided to move to North East and
settled into Sunderland and became self-
small business, working under a SCC licence.
8. P had previously passed entrance examinations for Birmingham
University to become an accredited interpreter, and that
ambition remained with her. She settled into a training course
and qualified as a translator capable of assisting Russian
speakers in their contact with hospitals, the Police, etc.
9. She remained lacking in confidence. She did not drink, dance,
or socialise. Any help sought from local organisations
and Social Services resulted in sessions with seriously disabled
people under the guise of day centre etc. Not suitable and not
enjoyed at all.
10. P was desperate for her own independence. Applications
were made and approved for her to rent a housing
agency property. She bought everything needed and moved in
and was very happy. LM assisted where necessary with
the housework and motherly advice. P soon realised that
nothing had changed except her address. She still
lacked confidence, and friends. She had a drunken neighbour.
She had children knocking her door into the evenings. She
became unsettled and felt unsafe. LM was spending increasing
amount of time supporting her. Respite care was arranged
with Social Services, which allowed LM and RM to enjoy short
periods alone.
11. August 2012. P contracted Meningitis and spent time in
Sunderland Royal hospital. This left her with a diagnosis of
schizophrenia and epilepsy. The epilepsy was easy controlled
with a medication. Since that time, only two seizures have
occurred, and both at Placement 1, but schizophrenia is a
different matter.
12. Appointments were difficult to arrange. Doctors from
Sunderland don’t want to know, but eventually after referral to
one of the doctors in Newcastle P was admitted to the hospital
and was put on a treatment.
13. She remained well for a few years, until she decided to stop
her treatment, but why was I blamed in Court? P was not a child
and there was nothing wrong with her mental capacity. She
even lived separately from me.
14. After couple of months the symptoms returned. Straight
away she went back onto her treatment, but it didn’t work this
time. Consultant appointments were all in Newcastle. The
Consultant was often unavailable, and ended up on long-
sick leave with no replacement. The medication was unstable in
its effects. The instability remained.
15. In February 2017 she was admitted to Walkergate Hospital.
She spent there five months, tried some new treatments that
didn’t work, but made her condition worse.
16. Very early in the year of 2017, the local newspaper reported
on the building of a new supported living facility in Sunderland.
This was to offer a social setting with 24 people, each paying
rent as tenants in a bungalow or private apartment.
Supportive care would be provided. Adaptive kitchens would be
suitable for physically disabled people. A social life would be
built where tenants would assist each other, enjoy day trips, or
even holidays as a group, Importantly, life skills were promised
which would teach everything from budgeting and menu
planning, to cooking and housework. P needed to build her
confidence in her skills and social life and this sounded ideal.
17. After much family discussion with attention being paid to P’s
needs and future, LM’s increasing age, and RM’s disabilities
following sepsis and emergency surgeries in 2012, an
application was made for a tenancy.
18. This early history shows exactly what has been
misrepresented and used as the basis for a court case that
was, I believe, rushed, without proper thought, and used as a
method of stopping scrutiny by the Local Government
Ombudsman. P was lacking confidence, made worse by being
let down constantly by the authorities.
19. Up to this point, there had never been concerns or
complaints about LM’s behaviour or care of P from any quarter.
Social Services, respite Care, GP, hospital staff,
doctors, housing association, neighbours, shopkeepers, family.
Nobody had any concerns about anything at all that was going
on between mother and daughter.
20. P spent time in Walkergate hospital in an attempt to stabilize
medication, but she was discharged from the hospital in a much
worse state than before she went in. She was not herself at all.
Injection that she was put on made her condition much worse.
She started to suffer from insomnia.
21. She was discharged into her new apartment at Placement 1.
This was a brand new establishment. The Manager was
friendly. She knew us from respite care. There were not 24
Tenants as planned. More like only 8. The staffing levels were
not fully met. The Manager arranged with LM to allow a
transition period into P’s new home for her to settle, and for the
staff levels to be brought up to the correct levels. LM was asked
to continue caring for P until those things were all met. Just as
with entry conditions, and tenancy contracts, no paperwork
was issued.
22. P was given some expensive silky embroidered bedding for
her new home. On the very first morning, that new bedding had
been thrown onto the wet room floor to mop up after P’s
shower. A complaint was made about the lack of care and
respect. From that point onwards, there were problems with a
dirty and sticky floor every morning from spilled medications.
Prescription changes were not administered properly, but
instead interfered with.
23. I have files and files of legitimate complaints to the Local
Authority starting from October 2017. This is when I went for the
first time to see a solicitor, because P and I struggle to stop
harmful medication. Recommendations on NHS Site in regards
to this medication are for short time use, but problems started
as soon as P went to live in the supported accommodation and
continue after Social Services involvement.
24. Food was stolen from P, with the crockery being found in
staff areas. Jewellery went missing. Medication errors were
recorded as they happened. Two seizures occurred with blood
test showing low dose of Epilim. Delicate clothing was washed
on long hot washes, destroying the fabrics. The alarm button
was ignored. Mouldy food was found in the fridge on more than
one occasion. Gum decease. Complaints became an almost
daily event. No life skills training was ever offered. The small
community room was closed and taken as an office, never to be
replaced. No community bus ever appeared. A complaint to
CQC resulted in several safeguarding concerns being made
that were never addressed or investigated. P’s tenancy was
not respected with entry into her apartment not being preceded
with a knock on the door.
25. Not a single complaint or concern was addressed except by
finding fault with LM. LM was even criticised for preventing the
care staff from properly caring for P. The total care allowed
amounted to 31 hours per week. What care could have been
missed in that time. There were no activities of any sort. LM
took P to a sauna and swimming, to jewellery making classes,
to poetry workshops, shopping and to the beach, but it was lost,
because of the restrictions and orders. Instead P suffered
isolation.
26. It was discovered that Placement 1 was being regulated by
the Local Authority, who had commissioned the building of the
establishment and were in partnership with the owners and
developers. That registration was illegal, simply because to
administer intimate care, the carers involved must be
employed elsewhere. The carers were employed at Placement
1 itself, meaning that it should have been CQC registered. Not a
single comment was made by the Placement, or LA, or the
judge to that information, but later and quietly the registration
was changed to CQC.
27. It must be mentioned, that the LA barrister made the
comment later to the judge, that the LA had underfunded P in
Placement 1. Nothing more was said, and no blame taken for
that lack of funding perhaps being the reason for the lack of
services provided which were so often complained about.
28. After getting nowhere with the complaints and safeguarding
concerns and the lack of help from the Social Services. The
Social Care and Local Government Ombudsman was
approached, who informed the LA that proper procedures must
be followed before the Ombudsman could take the complaint.
The LA never answered to any of my complaints in writing.
Another company supposedly independent but commissioned
by the LA was instructed to investigate. That investigation
started on 30 May 2018, coincidentally the same date that the
Court Papers were issued, and was not completed until 7
September 2018.
29. Strange comments were made by the investigator about
“checking factual facts” and suchlike, referring to the LA after
the investigation was made. The report was not concluded until
14 November 2018, some 6 weeks after completion. At all
points through the investigation, P’s capacity is properly
recognised by everybody involved in the investigation, including
by the investigator herself who met P as part of her enquiries.
Not a single complaint was upheld, even from the CQC
intervention. Statements were made from carers who told of LM
abusing staff, constantly complaining, being in the way all of the
time etc. Not a single carer stated that they personally had
suffered abuse. Carers when answering questions in different
sections gave conflicting stories. The report summary did not
resemble the contents of the sections. Recommendations for
the LA to action, are still not actioned 4 years later.
30. On 8 May, 2018, P signed Lasting Powers of Attorney in
order for LM to look after her affairs. The Solicitor, although
happy with P’s presentation, was aware of her schizophrenia,
and properly asked the GP to make a Capacity Assessment.
There were no concerns at all with allowing the signing of the
documents. P sent a handwritten letter to the Social Worker,
informing her that we are doing Power of Attorney. She also
explained about her worries that the LA wanted to restrict our
contact. She explained that it would not be in her best interests.
Why did everyone, including my daughter’s legal
representatives, ignore her letter? It was presented in Court.
Everyone is aware that after Court started and restrictions were
imposed, my daughter went through a period of paranoia that
she had been kidnapped. She was so stressed out. She even
sent a letter to the Police that is also included in Court
documents and also ignored. How can it be in her best interests
to go through such stress?
31. There had never been concerns about P’s Mental Capacity.
Assessments by the GP, Social Worker, and doctors, had all
shown a proper understanding and decision making.
32. The Social Worker claims to have made assessments on 1st
May, 4th May, and 9th May, concluding that P had no
understanding, could not digest new information, did not accept
her illness, and did not appreciate that LM greatly influenced
her decisions.
33. A Social Worker spanning a GP with assessments and
arriving at a totally opposing opinion. No assessment records
have been produced, despite the legal requirement to make and
keep records. No records were shown to the Court, or to the
GP, or to P. The Jjdge did not question the lack of those
records.
34. By 30th May 2018, the LA had submitted a large amount of
documents to the Court of Protection on the basis that P lacked
capacity. This based on alleged assessments with no records,
no recollection of any person of those assessments taking
place, the wrong medical history of P, and the statement that
Placement 1 wanted to stop providing Care for P. This is care
that was not being provided anyway, complaints that were not
being answered, and a situation where P was not even in care,
but a rent paying tenant responsible for the utility bills in her
apartment. There were still not 24 Tenants in place, but nearer
15. The LA were regulating an establishment in partnership with
a private company, and not accepting any responsibility for any
failures. There has only ever been one letter from Social
Services, dated 28th March 2018, with any concerns about a
breakdown in relationships. A month later, the social worker is
creating a case for Mental Capacity, which is the only way that
they can control the situation.
35. I mention here the simple rule in the MCA 2005, that at all
times a person must be considered to have capacity, unless
shown otherwise at the time that a decision must be made. At
no time have Social Services, or the LA accepted that simple
requirement of empowerment in the MCA 2005.
36. Access restrictions were put into place, with supervisors from
an outside company attending. Those carers had no concerns
at all with LM, or her behaviour towards them or to P. Two
made Ssatements to the Court and appeared as witnesses, and
expressed those thoughts. From this same company, carers
found three month out of date coconut milk on P’s breakfast
table. When they raised concerns, they were banned just as LM
was from entering Placement 1. No action was taken about the
out of date foodstuffs. One young carer met us for an access
session and spent the next 20 minutes being questioned by the
social worker and placement manager. The girl came out
white faced and sweating. Another carer became pregnant and
left. A third carer wrote a statement about laxatives that were
ludicrous in the extreme. Her contact notes had been altered,
on the wrong date. Her own chronology was impossible to have
been met. She did not stand up to examination in the witness
box, but was later given a new job in Placement 1, just around
the corner from where she lived. That care company eventually
stated that they could not continue to meet the supervision
because LM was costing them staff. No carer ever objected to
LM, and no carer left their job because of LM. Contact notes
from this company were requested by the judge. She was then
told that the notes were missing, and last seen in the hands of a
social worker.
37. The restrictions tightened. The care level decreased.
Medication errors continued and are recorded up to June 2020.
At no time were proper accounts given to explain P’s cash held
in the office for her use. Another care company became
involved, again with no problems or complaints about LM.
38. There were hearings and more hearings. Every one was just
additions to the LA case. Not a shred of proven evidence was
offered. Just hearsay and copies of short hospital notes. Not a
single item of opposing evidence was accepted by the LA or the
Court. I was accused of most ridiculous lies, but even after
disapproving them in court, things would not change, but
restrictions would become more severe and the court would
drag on and on like nothing happened.
39. Covid struck in early 2019. Despite the 2017 Rules and
Procedures, the judge made no provision for hearings to be
made via video or telephone. The judge gave no instructions
for mediation. The judge gave no guidance at all, but accepted
that all of the Court arrangements would be made by the LA.
40. A court expert was employed. This should have been
another independent appointment, but was given to a man who
regularly works within the LA Social Services. He met P for a
period of approximately 2 hours including a break in 2019. His
report shows that P did understand the questions asked of her,
but the summary was different. He claimed that she could not
understand the implications of various places to live. But he
gave her insufficient information. She could not answer simply
because she didn’t have that information. He did not offer her
that information. He did not offer her more time (perhaps
tomorrow) He did not accept her unstable medication and he
did not follow the rules of the MCA 2005. He asked her about
her illness and medication. She was accepting her medication
but believed the diagnosis to be wrong. She believed it to be a
physical illness, not a mental illness. He did not understand that
she was at that stage not accepting the stigma that mental
health carries in Russia. She understood well enough the need
for her medications, just not the reasons. As for not
understanding who to meet, that was not even mentioned, but
he still made his opinion known. He also claimed that she had
no capacity in May, to understand and sign the LPA’s. That is
impossible as an assessment is valid only for the short time
surrounding it. He had no reason to visit the past in that fashion,
except for the social workers alleged assessment in May which
at that time was the first and only concern ever raised. This
expert was neither independent, nor fair to P. He blindly
followed the instructions on what he should be finding.
41. This resulted in the LPA’s being rescinded by the Public
Guardian, thus removing LM from the picture regarding care
and treatment options for P. When examined in Court, he spoke
coldly on his opinion. He gave the judge no advice on mental
capacity, or the Act. He passed nothing more than an opinion,
and despite a much earlier order requiring a fluent Russian
speaker as expert, or the presence of an accredited interpreter
to be present, no such person was in place during his
assessments. The judge at the end of his evidence, did not
pause, or consider, she just carried on regardless with an
assumed jurisdiction based on an Eepert’s opinion that the MCA
2005 forbids him from making.
42. The Court bundle now amounted to a large suitcase filled
with ten loose leaf files amounting to thousands of pages.
Again, this contravenes the 2017 Rules and Procedures, and
yet again, the judge raised no concerns. The Council barrister
sat with two computers, while he tried to heap blame upon
blame onto LM. Items such as, “Did you mimic a Team
Leader?” Not a care for P herself, but casting objection upon
objection against LM. The social worker gave evidence and
upon leaving the witness box, gave sudden notice of early
retirement. Mid 50s and suddenly terminating her employment
without a replacement being found. This caused the judge to
raise her eyebrows, but was an indication of the unreliability of
her evidence. Just as with so many others, another main player
removed from the scene.
43. This hearing was delayed for a period of three months due to
the Covid, and the judge’s availability. LM was kept as a sworn
witness for all of this period. A completely unacceptable
situation. When finally completed, the judge still delayed her
judgement for another several months.
44. No continuity, no speed, no regard to a person needing
“protecting”, no urgency. Completely without any form or
control, and the judge could not possible make fair judgements
based on those delays.
45. Meanwhile in Placement 1, it had been placed beyond any
criticism, simply by removing access from everybody who dared
to raise concerns, or to remove those people themselves. P’s
dentist was removed for making complaints about the lack of
dental care that went against her instructions. Her GP (against
her wishes), and the only professional P trusted.
46. Carers who raised concerns with CQC were soon out of
work. The social worker continued with inflammatory
comments that created a wrong impression. “P is pleased to
see LM at the start of contact. P is withdrawn after access,
therefore LM must be saying things to upset her”. Surely that is
normal reactions?
47. “Many and prolonged night time phone calls are disrupting
P’s sleep and making her unable to take part in her activities the
following morning”. LM was even blamed for “sleep deprivation”.
This was repeated over and over, whilst ignoring the phone
records that showed where the calls originated. It was P calling
in distress needing to speak to her Mum that was making the
calls, but LM was roundly blamed.
48. In January 2020, another medication was proposed. P
willingly and voluntarily entered Walkergate hospital again to
move onto the new medication. She suffered a hard time with
her old medication being withdrawn before the new one could
be slowly introduced. This was a dangerous period. There was
some strange activity going on at the ward. It is all recorded and
complaints were made, but never properly investigated, but P
was sectioned to ensure that the treatment was completed. The
LA is happy to state that she entered hospital under Section,
but that is another wordplay to create a wrong impression.
49. During this hospital stay, which was distressing for all, P
often had no telephone access to contact her mum. The phone
was often discharged. The new social worker blamed P for
removing her phone batteries. This allegation continued despite
it being pointed out that removal of batteries in modern phones
requires workshop facilities. The social worker also stated that
LM had run through hospital corridors to bang on P’s door,
disturbing her in the process. She made no explanation of how
LM was able to bypass a locked security door in what was a
secure hospital. On another occasion, the social worker
claimed that LM had been “hanging around all day, when in fact
replacement telephones had been supplied as well as bottled
water for P. Had there been any ”hanging around”, security
would have removed LM or anybody else. This same social
worker accused LM and RM of abusive and foul language to her
on the telephone. Both of these allegations are strongly denied,
but during a complaint about her to Social Work England, she
stated that she had nothing to do with a hospital Care Plan
when in fact her own name was listed in those responsible by
the hospital. A liar indeed and ripe for a Pprjury trial.
50. This is now two social workers who told lies. The judge only
asked “ Why would social workers lie?” The simple answer is
that they can, without any punishment. They create scenarios
for any unknown reason, to break innocent families who have
questioned the system. They do not challenge the families who
are violent or harmful, as they avoid them, resulting in abuse
and death of innocent children and vulnerable adults.
51. By May 2020, P was in excellent health and much better
than for many years. She was positively trying to address her
future but was being ignored. She had arranged for a tribunal
which was to take place on 29th May. Her consultant released
her to Placement 1 on 26th May 2020. She was subject to a
strict care plan that insisted that she be returned to hospital if
even a pill was missed in the first 7 days. This is the plan that
the social worker is named on. P was now out of hospital, and
cancelled the Ttibunal. Only 2 days after returning to Placement
1, she went rapidly downhill, and remained at rock bottom for
five weeks in which she was not returned to hospital, she was
discharged by the hospital, her Section was lifted by the
hospital, and the responsibilities of the Care Plan were ignored.
29 doses of PRN medication being given in 35 days. Despite
the cancellation of the tribunal, the social worker still claimed
to have been present at it, and that P had been refused her
appeals. Nothing but lies, but the judge asked “Why would
social workers lie?” The answer is simply because they can as
the perjury laws are ignored by the courts and judges.
52. The LA asked P’s solicitor for the medical records. P’s
solicitor gained the records and distributed them. They showed
the ignoring of the Care Plan, Medication mistakes again by
Placement 1, and a complete lack of any urgency or realisation
that something needed to be done. The records show wilful
neglect!
53. By early July, P was taken to Sunderland Royal Hospital who
found her to be short of medication with too many tablets in her
tray. Suddenly after intervention by the CPN, that was all a
mistake and P was discharged.
54. P did not want to go to Walkergate. A consultant accepted
her capacity to make that decision, even in this horrendous
period. However, P’s wishes had to be overruled as she needed
to be into the only bed available. She returned to Walkergate
and her admission notes showed that on 9th July, her physical
condition left much to be desired. Bruised vaginal area. Matted
and odorous pubic hair that was pulling on skin and causing
pain. Overgrown toenails. No references were made to the
possibility of wilful neglect. These reports were with held from
the Court, by all legal teams except RM who submitted them as
a late Statement. The judge was aware of them, but never
made reference even when they were submitted by RM a
second time.
55. The legal teams have a duty to the Court to submit any
documents even though they may go against their own
interests. Those records have never been mentioned anywhere.
Walkergate also stated a shortage of the prescribed medication,
just as Sunderland Royal had. After only a short period, P was
moved to Hopewood Park hospital, and on a third occasion, P
was said to be short of the same medication!
56. Here a new consultant seemed to only meddle with
medication. He changed long standing and effective
medications for others. He insisted on a contraceptive implant
against her wishes and cultural values. He interfered with the
medication that had been working so well in May, and
reintroduced another that had caused adverse effects some
three years previously. P’s GP and previous consultant
objected, and were promised that that medication would cease.
P was promised the same, as was LM. No changes were made.
More discussions with the previous doctors, more promises, but
no changes. P was being given medication that causes her to
suffer distress and psychosis. The Court restrictions prevented
proper discussions and the consultant would not communicate
except to say that his prescription was “similar” to the one that
was so effective.
57. The General Medical Council is responsible for regulating
doctors, but they refused to see anything wrong, despite that
they have been informed on a regular basis about on-
issues.
58. The Health and Care Ombudsman refused to investigate.
They accepted complaints and consent from P. They promised
step-
claiming that the doctor involved is not employed by the NHS.
59. The rest of the regulating authorities like the CQC, the
Judicial Conduct Office, the Attorney General, all say that they
have "No remit to investigate", despite their legal duty. How on
Earth can a Local Authority with its corrupt court be above the
Attorney General? There is correspondence with the Attorney
General, who stated that it is for the Police to investigate
perjury in court. How can the court block this investigation?
60. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman
behaving in the strangest way. It is they who explained about
the procedures, but when I complained just recently in regards
to the procedures, they don’t want to know, and despite that it is
they who advised me to make a complaint to the LA.
61. There is Coercive Psychiatric Abuse Report that was sent to
the Commission on Human Rights in June 2021, soon after the
New WHO guidance -
This report was also sent to every regulating authority,
including the Court. It is explained in great detail in that report
what went on, and about the impact on P and family. Also a lot
of video evidence was included, but it was never investigated,
but ignored by the Court of Protection and all of the regulating
authorities.
62. Is the Court of Protection not aware that involuntary and
forced drugging is against the international law? Are they
aware of Article 12 Equal Recognition before the Law? It
stated in General comment number 1 that: "Equal
Recognition before the law, specifies that forced treatment
among other discriminatory practices must be abolished in
order to ensure that full legal capacity is restored to persons with
disabilities on equal basis with others".
63. The social worker seemed determined to create even more
distance between LM and P. At one point, P said that her
identity had been taken away, reducing her to nothing. Her
telephone and computer were taken away. She asked LM to
see her passport. LM showed her Russian passport with her
name and photograph on it to reassure her. Nurses reported
this to the social Wwrker, who immediately called abduction
intentions and went to Court to remove LM’s nearest relative
privileges. The Independent Mental Health Advocate claimed a
conflict of interest with the social worker, which shows that he
was not and remains not independent! She did not get the case
into Court, despite two further attempts. She did not even
realise, or think to check that the passports shown were valid.
They were and remain expired, and any abduction would have
been a fruitless exercise.
64. P did not improve. She remained on medication with a
history of causing problems. Phrases such as “treatment
resistance” were used. A hardly surprising situation when using
drugs that caused adverse effects in the past and creating the
same symptoms now. No regulator would intervene. CQC
merely reported direct to the LA. The Health Trust said that
there was nothing wrong. The consultant’s regulators would not
intervene, claiming that the consultant was working under the
Mental Health Act and was not therefore regulated. That gives
him free range to do exactly as he pleased
without repercussion.
65. Discharge came closer. Still unwell and unstable. Placement
1 had said that they could not look after P any more, and a new
home was looked for.
66. A good place that P had visited in the past was approached
by the social worker who had Court instructions on what could
be said. This home had been happy since 2018 to offer a
placement. Suddenly with the social worker, the manager
changed. The social worker spoke continuously about
“Complex Problems” such as “Eating and swallowing
difficulties”, “incontinence”, “vision problems”, “mobility
problems”, “learning difficulties”. P never suffered from the
conditions mentioned above and that was put on her. All of
these had been dismissed in the past. No records or minutes of
that meeting were taken. It is not clear what was said, but no
place was offered. This was not challenged by the judge,
despite her instructions to the social worker. The social worker
announced directly to ward nurses that there was no position
for P. Confidential information that should have passed through
proper channels.
67. October 2021. P is still on the medication that causes
unwanted psychosis. She is told that she will soon be
discharged to another care Hhme. Two places are looked at in
the next city from home. P visited both, and after some
consideration, made her choice, demonstrating her ability to
collect information and balance it to make a decision in
accordance with the MCA 2005. The social worker wrote in a
statement that there was no capacity present, as she would
have said that she wanted safety and security etc. She had said
all of this in Placement 1, but been ignored. The social worker
effectively rewrote the Mental Capacity Act. A week or so later,
P had second thoughts. She worked through all of the pros and
cons again, to reach the same decision. Yet another example of
showing good capacity.
68. On the day that she was to move, a hospital nurse
telephoned LM, and asked if she would like a taxi to take her to
meet P in Newcastle. The answer was Yes please. The taxi
arrived and took LM to The Beacon Centre in Newcastle where
she met P. Shortly after, another Taxi arrived calling for LM by
name and stating that he was to take her to a psychiatric
hospital in Newcastle. LM ran away as this was all too strange
and was a possible abduction. No arrangements had been
made for a second taxi, and nobody knew where LM would be
except the nurse at the hospital. There is a history of false
arrests and abductions of whistleblowers and objectors well
recorded in this country. Questions were asked of the Police,
Social Services, and in Court. Nobody had answers but the
social worker made much of the Mental Health of LM. Refusal
to accept that P was ill (Not Correct) claims that medication
was being misapplied (Correct) abduction fears (Correct) and
some months later, the fact that LM had appeared without
makeup, when delivering some presents for P. The ocial
worker was intent on personal attacks of LM and further
degrading and blackening her character. At the third supervised
meeting, P was very unwell, and LM was particularly
concerned. The meeting was terminated early and the Court
was informed about behaviour, and talking about medications
and illness and speaking Russian, and the contact
arrangements were all reduced further, and yet another
Christmas was missed. Inhumanity, discriminatory, unhelpful,
and certainly not in P’s best interests. Contact sessions were no
longer attended by LM with the unanswered questions about
the taxi. The social worker stated that this showed that LM was
more interested in herself than in P.
69. P remained unwell, psychotic most evenings and receiving
PRN. Nobody would look at the medication issue.
70. P now had a team of medics and carers and nurses that
were all brand new and with no knowledge of P other than in
records and the heavy influence of the social worker. P
continued to suffer.
71. Now we come to the hearing under Judge Pool in June. LM
had had no legal representation. The LA legal team were working closely with P’s team to control the Courts events, Orders, Personal attacks on LM and defence
of Social Services. This was particularly and suddenly evident with the LA barrister having concerns about the new judge being annoyed at bundle size. Timetables for Court were
produced as well as other exercises that had never been done under the previous judge. A clear indication that procedures were now to be more followed than before. We are now 4 full years into a case where a person is claimed to need protection. That person, P, has lost her home, her pets, her furniture, her liberty, her capacity, her family, and everything else. Questions from 4 years previously have still not been answered. Why was LM attacked for criticising theft, errors, damage, lack of care etc? Placement 1, the wonderful highly defended brand new development, that the LA had commissioned, had a partnership
in, were illegally regulated by, had received a terrible CQC report, a sadly anonymous review which described almost exactly P’s experience, had closed down! 4.3 million pounds,
lost in a short 5 years of mismanagement, low quality staff, and LA involvement! 24 desperately needed homes for people in need lost needlessly. And still our questions are not answered, but are much more justified. There was still no community room, days out, holidays, activities or any of the promises made.
72. P was a tenant. She had every right to leave that Placement. She was not in care. They wanted to evict her. The LA then, ignoring all history, had their social worker create
fictitious concerns about mental capacity.
73. Why was the IMCA appointed before Capacity was questioned? Why was the time period between Capacity Assessments which the social worker claimed were lacking
capacity, spanning the GP’s assessment of no concerns, and the Court proceedings so short, even before the investigation into events had started. We have often believed that P’s
condition has been engineered to deliberately create a worse illness than she has. Why has medication been so wrong? Why has every request for toxicology tests been vigorously denied, not just by the LA but by the barrister of P herself? That man has been against everything that would help his client. Why indeed did the LA insist on P staying in Placement 1, when she had a position in Placement 2, which the later social worker
kept no records on, other than to try to fill 24 places that were still mostly empty? They should have, and could have easily corrected the problems in Placement 1 and retained what
should have been a great asset, rather than having it’s tenants wandering the area aimlessly with trouble from the local youth needing a Police presence far too often.
74. Judge Pool would accept nothing said by LM. He stated that he trusted the previous judge’s judgements. He made no attempt to look at the lack of Court procedure. He made no
attempt to study or understand the previous 5 years of events. He latched onto the LA and P’s barristers comments about LM having “High expressed emotion”. But he did not even try to understand that that may have been the result of a concerned and worried Mother over the suffering of her only daughter.
75. All Judge Pool did was to reinforce all of the previous Orders and reduce further telephone contact to one call a fortnight, supervised with strict rules, and face to face access reduced to nothing between June and December. Horrendous breaches of Human Rights, Not respecting P’s wishes to see more of LM which are long standing and without variation. Not accepting the medication issue. Not considering any discrimination
regulations. He did not want to look at the procedural faults, or the time delays.
76. P is in a far worse mental and physical health now than she has ever been. She is weak in her legs from a lack of exercise. She receives no therapies in the way of swimming, massage, or sauna. Her toenails have demanded immediate attention three times where Carers have not bothered. She has verrucas and athlete’s foot, despite the physiotherapist long standing instructions to always wear ankle supportive footwear. She has been allowed to walk barefoot. She has undoubtedly been the victim of wilful neglect, but Judge Pool blocked Police investigation into that, the taxi incident, the thefts and assaults
in Placement 1. Judge Pool also made no comment when the social worker announced in Court that the taxi driver had merely called out the wrong address. That information has taken 7 months to divulge, but does not account for the taxi returning to ask the nurses what to do now. P witnessed that! Why was the information not given much earlier, undoubtedly to P’s benefit? Judge Pool listened to the LA describing in wonderful terms the benefits of Placement 3. The same words used about the failed Placement 1. He did not question that. He did not study or comment on the concerns of LM or RM laid out
clearly in multiple Statements. Judge Pool even laid further restrictions on RM who has never done anything wrong, or been accused of anything wrong, or even had any concerns raised about him. Extremely unfair and further depriving P of any family contact.
77. I repeat that every action by Social Services on behalf of the LA, has been to silence or remove any possible problem. LM attacked unmercifully. Over restrictive orders placed. dentist removed. Carers removed. GP removed. RM removed for no reason. social worker 1 removed after her performance in the witness box. Manager 1 removed. Manager 2 removed. Team Leader removed. Placement 1 itself closed. And still P suffers!
78. No first hand statements were made by any medics, any accusatory Carers, any others. No witness appearances in Court either. Just hearsay evidence that was often out of
context and without any signatures or names. Only two Carers appeared in Court after writing statements, and both were very much backing LM and P.
79. The Independent Mental Health Advocate is not independent. He appointed P’s legal representatives who at all times back the LA. The Court expert was not independent.
Placement 1 was not independent. The Investigating company was not independent. What chance has P had? What protection has P enjoyed from the Mental Capacity Act 2005, The Social Care and Discrimination Act, The Human Rights Act, the Perjury Act, the Criminal Justice Act 1988 regarding torture? The 2017 rules and procedures for the Court of Protection, or even her Lasting Powers of Attorney, legally signed, but had to be removed as part of the distancing policy by the LA of LM. Even the Police have been blocked from investigation, despite the Attorney General stating that it is for the Police to
investigate Perjury.
80. The LA has corruptly used the very convenient cloak of confidentiality of the Court of Protection to achieve their own ends in avoiding the scrutiny of the Local Government
Ombudsman. Past Presidents of the Family division have commented on the flaws and failings of the system. The current President is speaking out about it now. The system is allowed to be corrupt because the rules are not followed, and confidentiality hides the wrongs. The LAs use the system corruptly and spend vast amounts of public money to their own ends.
81. There are now far too many victims of the system. Broken families that lose a member to the system. These people are starting to speak out. The fear of imprisonment and fines is no longer working. There are already protests on the streets.
82. I hope that I have shown what has been ignored, and that my appeal is upheld. It will help many, many weeping mothers and crying children and lonely adults. All deprived to the corrupt system.
83. LM is without legal representation simply because her solicitor just shrugged and smiled and said that the system is all we have. Is it surprising that the system has created a monster that fails to protect the vulnerable?