'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.'
I'd rather go into a home than have carers coming into to look after me. Half the home `carers` out there have no qualifications and have entered the caring profession as they have no other career options. They couldn't give a fig about the needs of an older person. God knows what they get up to alone in the homes of vulnerable older people. At least in a care home the staff and their actions are regulated and monitored.
I'd rather go into a home than have carers coming into to look after me. Half the home `carers` out there have no qualifications and have entered the caring profession as they have no other career options. They couldn't give a fig about the needs of an older person. God knows what they get up to alone in the homes of vulnerable older people. At least in a care home the staff and their actions are regulated and monitored.
I would agree, although I only know about adult care from what I have read, as I work with children only, except that I find it heartbreaking that people cant take pets into homes.
There would be complaints if the social workers had left him at home and he'd left a pan on his stove, forgot about it and died of smoke inhalation, there would be questions asking why they'd left a man of advanced years with dementia alone. I wouldn't want to be a social worker, they're demonised all the time, whatever action they take is wrong and accused of inaction when they do nothing.
We don't know the whole story (as usual). How come it was a friend and not his family that fought to get him back home, that is unusual in itself isn't it? Maybe they were all for him going into the unit because they didn't want the hassle of looking after him or organising/paying for carers.
Anyway I'm glad he is where he wants to be and is being cared for. He's lucky to have such a good friend.
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.
I am and scottie is right, they are completely different legal processes.
My mother is in a secure home, quite possibly against her will, however this is impossible to determine because of her dementia. Its certainly against her expressed wishes before she got dementia.....but we had no choice. Sometimes it is the only option.
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.
BIB you need to explain that because I haven't a clue what you mean.
Strange how you're trying to dismiss or undermine my accurate information by insult.
There would be complaints if the social workers had left him at home and he'd left a pan on his stove, forgot about it and died of smoke inhalation, there would be questions asking why they'd left a man of advanced years with dementia alone. I wouldn't want to be a social worker, they're demonised all the time, whatever action they take is wrong and accused of inaction when they do nothing. We don't know the whole story (as usual). How come it was a friend and not his family that fought to get him back home, that is unusual in itself isn't it? Maybe they were all for him going into the unit because they didn't want the hassle of looking after him or organising/paying for carers. Anyway I'm glad he is where he wants to be and is being cared for. He's lucky to have such a good friend.
The report in the Telegraph includes this sentence
'Friends P regularly met at church were 'unanimous' in their view that he would be better off at home – although his own niece and nephews disagreed.'
Which suggests his immediate family wished him to be in residential care, although for what reason we don't know.
There would be complaints if the social workers had left him at home and he'd left a pan on his stove, forgot about it and died of smoke inhalation, there would be questions asking why they'd left a man of advanced years with dementia alone. I wouldn't want to be a social worker, they're demonised all the time, whatever action they take is wrong and accused of inaction when they do nothing.
We don't know the whole story (as usual). How come it was a friend and not his family that fought to get him back home, that is unusual in itself isn't it? Maybe they were all for him going into the unit because they didn't want the hassle of looking after him or organising/paying for carers.
Anyway I'm glad he is where he wants to be and is being cared for. He's lucky to have such a good friend.
The options weren't either take him into a care home or leave him at home. A person can have their care needs met at home and that's what's now happening. It's awful that this didn't happen straight away. Where there is a serious dispute over where a person should be living and what's in their best interests then the matter can be referred to the court of protection. The local authority acted unlawfully and also inhumanely.
The options weren't either take him into a care home or leave him at home. A person can have their care needs met at home and that's what's now happening. It's awful that this didn't happen straight away. Where there is a serious dispute over where a person should be living and what's in their best interests then the matter can be referred to the court of protection. The local authority acted unlawfully and also inhumanely.
Certainly does look like something went wrong although I'm trying to get my head round what it was. There looks to be some medical reports which stated that he lacked capacity over decision making in relation to care and finance. People can be looked after in their own homes but there comes a point when it is just not safe. I am a social worker, although specialise in child protection not adults so I am a bit woolly on the legalities of the case but accept that the judge found in favour or the old chap.
I did some care work when I was at university and pretty much all of the people I visited had dementia and the majority were fine in their own homes, their dementia (and in some cases quite severe) was manageable and they were safe (baring falls but that is a risk for the elderly without dementia anyway). I did visit a couple both with dementia and they were definitely not safe, they would overdose on tablets, turn on irons (face down), lock themselves out and go wandering...it was awful visiting because it freaked me out, it was so risky. The couple owned and lived in a big house with some value and their daughters would not let them go into a home because the house would have funded their care so they blamed the carers for not doing their job properly and would change care companies when they questioned the risks. I gave up work so never did see what happened to them but they were definitely a case which social workers need to resolve and get them some proper care in a residential unit, overruling the family.
BTW anyone horrified about this story should strongly consider sorting out a lasting power of attorney and also an advanced directive. Choose someone you trust and make sure you wishes are known that way decisions will be made by someone who knows and cares for you rather than strangers at a best interest meeting. You never know when you will need it. Think incapacitating car accident.....its at any age.
And for balance, lots of social workers can and do make very tough, but very right calls - I've seen this first hand multiple times. An awful example of social workers making terrible decisions has to be balanced with the understanding that they do make good decisions also.
Unfortunately, there will always be cases of them acting too strongly and also of them not acting strongly enough (i.e. Baby P).
Is there an answer available that ensures they make the right call every single time? I'm not sure there is.
Let's be clear; this wasn't about social workers making a wrong decision. This was about social workers breaking the law by detaining him illegally.
Yeah I got that from the reports but I'm still confused because it suggests that the social workers didnt apply to the court for an order to place him in a home so were breaking the law so that bit is true but there seems to be more than that the case. Surely it has to be a wrong decision as well as breaking the law because their assessment resulted in them overruling his capacity to make decisions so they put him in a home but they must have been wrong about that because he is okay at home now so it has to be decision making too.
Yeah I got that from the reports but I'm still confused because it suggests that the social workers didnt apply to the court for an order to place him in a home so were breaking the law so that bit is true but there seems to be more than that the case. Surely it has to be a wrong decision as well as breaking the law because their assessment resulted in them overruling his capacity to make decisions so they put him in a home but they must have been wrong about that because he is okay at home now so it has to be decision making too.
There is no need to apply to the Court for a deprivation of liberty - that application is made to the local authority. There were times when he was deprived of his liberty without DoLS (deprivation of liberty safeguards) in place, i.e. with no legal authority.
When decisions are made on the behalf of someone without capacity then the decisions must be in the person's best interests. Sometimes there are disputes about what is in their best interests and the local authority should have referred the matter to the Court for them to make the decision.
Yeah I got that from the reports but I'm still confused because it suggests that the social workers didnt apply to the court for an order to place him in a home so were breaking the law so that bit is true but there seems to be more than that the case. Surely it has to be a wrong decision as well as breaking the law because their assessment resulted in them overruling his capacity to make decisions so they put him in a home but they must have been wrong about that because he is okay at home now so it has to be decision making too.
There appeared to be a dispute about his capacity to make decisions over his accommodation. I would need to read the article again. I should have said that this is not "just" about making a wrong decision but an illegal and inhumane act. I wonder why the care home did not apply for DoLS? In recent months since the Cheshire West ruling, referrals have gone through the roof.
There is no need to apply to the Court for a deprivation of liberty - that application is made to the local authority. There were times when he was deprived of his liberty without DoLS (deprivation of liberty safeguards) in place, i.e. with no legal authority.
When decisions are made on the behalf of someone without capacity then the decisions must be in the person's best interests. Sometimes there are disputes about what is in their best interests and the local authority should have referred the matter to the Court for them to make the decision.
My original comment was about case and trying to figure out what the social workers did wrong in relation to a poster saying that they broke the law but it is interesting to read your comments. I suspect you know much more about this than me, as I said earlier I am a social worker but in child protection not adult services. I remember some of it from uni but I have never practiced in the adult field.....hence my 'courts' inaccuracy in my post. I know about capacity, sadly from personal experience (mother with dementia) but I am still a bit lost with the case. Was the judge criticising the social worker for holding someone without the correct authority and if so was that because the paperwork had not been done or because he did have capacity and was held against his will.
There appeared to be a dispute about his capacity to make decisions over his accommodation. I would need to read the article again. I should have said that this is not "just" about making a wrong decision but an illegal and inhumane act. I wonder why the care home did not apply for DoLS? In recent months since the Cheshire West ruling, referrals have gone through the roof.
Yes I read about the conflict over capacity but couldn't work out whether he had it or not in the end, just that the experts didn't agree....the article wasn't clear or I missed that bit.
I hope they do an investigation because it would be interesting to see why the family were so keen for him to be in a home, they had nothing to gain from wanting him there. I'm also curious about the ban on the church and friends being part of his care plan....that bit is really odd.
Comments
Oh, good news!
Poor man (& cat!)
I would agree, although I only know about adult care from what I have read, as I work with children only, except that I find it heartbreaking that people cant take pets into homes.
We don't know the whole story (as usual). How come it was a friend and not his family that fought to get him back home, that is unusual in itself isn't it? Maybe they were all for him going into the unit because they didn't want the hassle of looking after him or organising/paying for carers.
Anyway I'm glad he is where he wants to be and is being cared for. He's lucky to have such a good friend.
I am and scottie is right, they are completely different legal processes.
My mother is in a secure home, quite possibly against her will, however this is impossible to determine because of her dementia. Its certainly against her expressed wishes before she got dementia.....but we had no choice. Sometimes it is the only option.
BIB you need to explain that because I haven't a clue what you mean.
Strange how you're trying to dismiss or undermine my accurate information by insult.
And what exactly did I 'copy and paste'?
The report in the Telegraph includes this sentence
'Friends P regularly met at church were 'unanimous' in their view that he would be better off at home – although his own niece and nephews disagreed.'
Which suggests his immediate family wished him to be in residential care, although for what reason we don't know.
The options weren't either take him into a care home or leave him at home. A person can have their care needs met at home and that's what's now happening. It's awful that this didn't happen straight away. Where there is a serious dispute over where a person should be living and what's in their best interests then the matter can be referred to the court of protection. The local authority acted unlawfully and also inhumanely.
Certainly does look like something went wrong although I'm trying to get my head round what it was. There looks to be some medical reports which stated that he lacked capacity over decision making in relation to care and finance. People can be looked after in their own homes but there comes a point when it is just not safe. I am a social worker, although specialise in child protection not adults so I am a bit woolly on the legalities of the case but accept that the judge found in favour or the old chap.
I did some care work when I was at university and pretty much all of the people I visited had dementia and the majority were fine in their own homes, their dementia (and in some cases quite severe) was manageable and they were safe (baring falls but that is a risk for the elderly without dementia anyway). I did visit a couple both with dementia and they were definitely not safe, they would overdose on tablets, turn on irons (face down), lock themselves out and go wandering...it was awful visiting because it freaked me out, it was so risky. The couple owned and lived in a big house with some value and their daughters would not let them go into a home because the house would have funded their care so they blamed the carers for not doing their job properly and would change care companies when they questioned the risks. I gave up work so never did see what happened to them but they were definitely a case which social workers need to resolve and get them some proper care in a residential unit, overruling the family.
Unfortunately, there will always be cases of them acting too strongly and also of them not acting strongly enough (i.e. Baby P).
Is there an answer available that ensures they make the right call every single time? I'm not sure there is.
Heads will roll for this and people will be called in front of the regulatory body (HCPC) and struck off the register.
Yeah I got that from the reports but I'm still confused because it suggests that the social workers didnt apply to the court for an order to place him in a home so were breaking the law so that bit is true but there seems to be more than that the case. Surely it has to be a wrong decision as well as breaking the law because their assessment resulted in them overruling his capacity to make decisions so they put him in a home but they must have been wrong about that because he is okay at home now so it has to be decision making too.
There is no need to apply to the Court for a deprivation of liberty - that application is made to the local authority. There were times when he was deprived of his liberty without DoLS (deprivation of liberty safeguards) in place, i.e. with no legal authority.
When decisions are made on the behalf of someone without capacity then the decisions must be in the person's best interests. Sometimes there are disputes about what is in their best interests and the local authority should have referred the matter to the Court for them to make the decision.
There appeared to be a dispute about his capacity to make decisions over his accommodation. I would need to read the article again. I should have said that this is not "just" about making a wrong decision but an illegal and inhumane act. I wonder why the care home did not apply for DoLS? In recent months since the Cheshire West ruling, referrals have gone through the roof.
My original comment was about case and trying to figure out what the social workers did wrong in relation to a poster saying that they broke the law but it is interesting to read your comments. I suspect you know much more about this than me, as I said earlier I am a social worker but in child protection not adult services. I remember some of it from uni but I have never practiced in the adult field.....hence my 'courts' inaccuracy in my post. I know about capacity, sadly from personal experience (mother with dementia) but I am still a bit lost with the case. Was the judge criticising the social worker for holding someone without the correct authority and if so was that because the paperwork had not been done or because he did have capacity and was held against his will.
Yes I read about the conflict over capacity but couldn't work out whether he had it or not in the end, just that the experts didn't agree....the article wasn't clear or I missed that bit.
I hope they do an investigation because it would be interesting to see why the family were so keen for him to be in a home, they had nothing to gain from wanting him there. I'm also curious about the ban on the church and friends being part of his care plan....that bit is really odd.