Pleased to see Social Workers put in their place by judge !
blueblade
Posts: 88,859 Forum Member
✭✭✭
This is a truly heartbreaking story of a 91 year old war veteran with dementia being forced from his home and locked in a secure dementia unit without any legal authority whatever, by over zealous social workers.
The unnamed gentleman was parted from his beloved cat, and only released because of the intervention of a friend.
He has been awarded £60k in damages, and the judge had some choice words for the council staff who forced him out of his home against his will.
He is now being cared for at home.
To me, not only the amount of power these incompetent idiots possess is scary, but that they think they possess more. Had the police actually been involved, would they have checked to verify that everything was legally above board, or just carried out what the council staff advised ?
link
The unnamed gentleman was parted from his beloved cat, and only released because of the intervention of a friend.
He has been awarded £60k in damages, and the judge had some choice words for the council staff who forced him out of his home against his will.
He is now being cared for at home.
To me, not only the amount of power these incompetent idiots possess is scary, but that they think they possess more. Had the police actually been involved, would they have checked to verify that everything was legally above board, or just carried out what the council staff advised ?
link
HEARTLESS social workers forced a 91-year-old from his home without authority and locked him in a dementia unit for 17 months, a court heard yesterday.
The frail former RAF gunner was taken from his house of 50 years in a dressing gown and separated from his cat.
Council staff then put him in a secure nursing home and ignored his pleas to be freed.
Only the tireless work of a close friend ended his nightmare.
The shocking abuse of power emerged in a landmark legal case in the Court of Protection that saw the man awarded damages of £60,000.
A High Court judge described the council’s behaviour as “reprehensible”.
The unnamed pensioner – known in court as Mr P – is now back home, where he is “happy and contented” and being looked after by carers.
Mr P’s solicitor Caroline Barrett said her client was “thrilled” to win his freedom.
The social worker overseeing the man’s removal first said he was going to a hotel but, when that failed to dislodge him, they threatened to call the police.
The decision to force him into care was made with no authority, the court heard.
He may have remained in the care home for the rest of his life had a friend not taken up his cause, it was said.
In his scathing ruling, Judge Paul Mort said: “Throughout the whole of the period of P’s placement, he expressed a consistent wish to return home.”
Despite expert advice that he was able to choose for himself, the council “did nothing to enable him to do so”.
Judge Mort said: “The result is that P was detained against his wishes for 17 months.”
The judge said: “It is hard to imagine a more depressing and inexcusable state of affairs.
"A defenceless 90-year-old gentleman in his final years was removed from his home of 50 years and detained in a locked dementia unit.
“Had it not been for the alarm raised by his friend, he may have been condemned to remain there for the remainder of his days.”
He slammed the council’s conduct as “substandard” and “totally inadequate”.
The council agreed to pay the man’s £50,000 legal bill plus £60,000 in damages and will fund an intensive care regime.
Last night Councillor Dick Madden, of Essex County Council, said: “We accept that in this case we failed to follow the legal requirements.”
0
Comments
If they break the law, I agree.
They might think twice before chucking their weight around then.
I was just thinking that myself. Isn't 'holding someone against their will' a criminal offence?
If they actually left the house with nobody but the cat in it, there's a separate case for an RSPCA prosecution of the morons concerned, for animal neglect IMO.
Although we don't know the precise circumstances as they pertain to the cat.
Not if an Approved Social worker has deprived them of their liberty. I have no idea if that applies in this case.
If these people who break the law were sent to prison then it would act as a warning to others to follow correct procedure.
It's no different than abuse, so why are they not facing a trial?
There was no initial authority to detain him. What would be needed is a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) application and an application wasn't made initially. So, he was deprived of his liberty unlawfully until the DoLS was put in place.
'ECC had no authorisation to remove P from his home on 2/5/13 and place him in a locked dementia unit. ECC allege that P left his home voluntarily. An urgent authorisation was not put in place until 27/6/13 and a standard authorisation not until 4/7/13 some two months after P’s removal from his home. It is by no means clear that P lacked capacity at the time. The authorisation included restrictions on P’s attendance at Church and contact with friends.'
Also:
'The standard authorisation [DoLS] which had been put in place on 4/7/13 expired on 25/10/13. It was not renewed thereby rendering P’s detention unlawful.'
http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/cpsjudgment2bfiinalcb3.pdf
For your information the involvement of an 'approved social worker' isn't relevant here and it's an out of date term now anyway. The role is approved mental health professional' and they become involved when an application to detention in hospital under the Mental Health Act is being considered. I'm surprised you didn't know.
Family members were involved but there were disagreements about what was in the man's best interests.
He was.
From the case report:
'On the 5th November I [the judge] was gratified to learn that P had returned home with his cat Fluffy. He is being looked after by carers and has accepted the care provided. RF reports that she has visited him and finds him to be happy and contented.'
That's good to hear! Cheers for info.
Thanks for the actual case notes
Trolling me again scottie. I wasn't aware you were a social work professional. Oh, you aren't, you just like copying and pasting things from the internet.
We, his family, were convinced that his stay in hospital had temporarily increased his dementia symptoms (this is a well known side-effect for dementai patients) and that given time back in his own flat.
The next day we told the hospital social workers that his daughter was down from the North and was staying in his flat, and would it be OK if he went home for the weekend - where she would look after him.
We never brought him back.
We then immediately set about arranging for carers from a private care company to visit him four times daily in his own home.
That was three years ago. He is still living in his own flat, with his own little back garden....and his dignity.
I doubt whether many elderly people with dementia would qualify to be detained under either section 2 or 3. That is partly why the deprivation of liberty rules were introduced so that any detention in a care home or hospital must be authorised unless consented to by the detained person.
Unfortunately, in many cases, no authorisation is sought owing to lack of knowledge and training. This case is just the tip of the iceberg and the Court of Protection has a streamlined procedure in place to cope with the expected flood of cases.