steven neary - hillingdon council - `deprivation of liberty` order
Posted by
Elena - former Community Manager
on 5th August 2010
at 11:28
Thank you for this, Michael - I'll share it with our Facebook and Twitter contacts.
Posted by
damo73
on 5th August 2010
at 23:37
This is all very disturbing to me - it is difficult without knowing more of the case to comment further - it just scares me the powers that authorities have - what on Earth is a 'deprivation of liberty' order? What kind of society are we living in? Sorry - but hard to put feelings and thoughts into context here!
Damian - Community Champion
Posted by
michaelz
on 23rd August 2010
at 11:38
shortened version of article from private eye - issue 1269 - 20 august-2 september
-------------
...according to mr neary, at a case conference last week attended by senior managers - not those directly involved in steven's care - it was made clear that steven would not be allowed home and the authority was looking to place him in a specialist unit.
to mr neary, the hearing was straight out of kafka.
they said one of those at most risk from an outburst from steven was mr neary hinmself - but when he pointed out that steven had been home for over 70 visits since christmas and hadn't once attacked him, one suggested that didn't rule out "risk in the future".
last thursday, two days after the case conference, hillingdon gave mr neary only 15 minutes notice of an assessment of steven by a potential "care provider" so he was therefore unable to attend...
...all this will no doubt make interesting evidence when steven's case is independently assessed by a high court judge sitting in the court of protection - http://www.publicguardian.gov.uk/about/court-of-protection.htm .
mr neary is taking some heart from a ruling this month in a similar case involving manchester city council which had removed a 19-year-old with learning difficulties from a woman who had treated him as part of her family for years.
the judge ruled the authority had failed to comply with the new deprivation of liberty safeguards when it placed the teenager into care....
...mr neary is supsicious that the movie to classify steven as priority because of his "extreme challenging behaviour" is cynically designed to shift the local authority's burden of costs onto the local health authority.
in the meantime steven has been unable to go on holiday with his adoptive dad and is getting anxious about how long he will he able to spend with him at christmas.
...
![SiftGroups.com [opens in a new window]](themes/zen/treehouse/images/siftGroupsLogo.gif)
Posted by
michaelz
on 5th August 2010
at 10:40
http://uxbridge.uxbridgegazette.co.uk/2010/07/record-reaction-over-autism-st.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-10874399
also article in private eye - no 1268 - issue 6 august - 19 august 2010.
taking liberties
just before christmas, mark neary asked for a short respite break for his 20-year-old autistic son steven.
mr neary was suffering flu-like symptoms and needed a rest.
he bitterly regrets the decision.
steven has since been made subject to a "deprivation of liberty" order by social workers and is now in care, allowed home only for short visits.
steven is apparently considered " a risk to himself and others "and lacking the mental capacity to make his own decisions about his welfare. it is an extraordinary finding, given that until he went into local authority "care" steven had lived happily at home ever since he was adopted by mr neary 15-years-ago.
steven had originally gone to a familiar care home where he had previously stayeed for short breaks but mr neary agreed to a request from social workers that he try a specialist behavioural unit to try to help with steven's sometimes difficult conduct and his weight problems.
left unattended, steven walked out of the unit, met a vicar in the street and removed the man's glasses, throwing them in the road.
that it seems was regarded as aggressive behaviour which triggered the deprivation of liberty order.
mr neary has been unable to get it lifted at subsequent reviews.
since he had been in the local authority's "positive" behavioural unit steven's behavious has become far more challenging and less positive.
in the four months hefore he went into respite care his father and support workers had recoreded 12 occasions where steven had say kicked out or pulled someone's finger.
from 31 december to 14 february the behavioural unit recorded no fewer than 45 incidents some listed as "assaults".
as his father himself a counsellor, points out, steven doesn't want to be in care, finds it difficult to understand why he cannot go home and so reacts accordingly.
the eye asked london's hillingdon council why steven had only become a risk when he went into care.
we also questioned whether it had breached safeguards which say that not only must a deprivation order he in steven's best interests but the authority must also be satisfied that a less restrictive alternative is not avaiilable. the council refuses to comment on individual cases.
steven's case is not due for review by the council until september, but hillingdon may be forced to justify its actions sooner as mr neary has instructed lawyers to challenge the order throught the courts.
http://www.private-eye.co.uk