Autism - Deprivation of Liberty order

Stranger_Than_Fiction

Hi all,

I hope you won't mind me posting this here even though it's not strictly about money.

I have a friend, Mark Neary, who has an adopted son of 20 with autism. Around Christmas last year, Mark had flu and his son Steven was given respite care for 3 nights. Since then, the local authority has kept Steven in care, despite the fact that neither he nor his father want him to be there.

Earlier this year, Steven was left unsupervised in the care home (and there were only 2 other residents), left the house and met a vicar whose glasses he removed. As a consequence of this, the local authority served Steven with a Deprivation of Liberty order.

Why, you might ask? It might have something to do with the fact that if the local authority can prove Steven needs 'treatment' rather than support, they can transfer the cost of his care to the local PCT.

I could write reams on this story but really came here to ask if you would be willing to a) find out more about this case and b) if you agree, sign the petition to allow Steven to return home.

You can find the petition http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?Steven&1

There is a Facebook group - Get Steven Home which you can find at http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=134345726596848&v=wall&story_fbid=144746105556810&ref=notif&notif_t=feed_comment_reply#!/group.php?gid=134345726596848&ref=ts and gives lots more information, including links to newspaper and radio articles.

Thanks for reading this and if you feel you can, please pass this on to family and friends. Steven just wants to be home with his dad who he has lived with quite happily and successfully for the last 15 years.

DX2

Are the NAS involved in any way?

catmc

hi i have signed the petition good luck keep us updated

dmg24

This has strong similarities to the Bournewood case, which I'm sure you know is what prompted the DoL Safeguards. Do you have a specialist solicitor handling the case? As well intentioned as the petition and media attention is, they will have no impact on the legal situation, which is what needs to be remedied here.

It really frustrates me that the change in the law was supposed to stop situations like this. Unfortunately the authorities involved still believe they are above the law.

Stranger_Than_Fiction

DX2 wrote: »

Are the NAS involved in any way?

I think they have given advice but will not get involved in specific cases. I will check that with Steven's dad and get back with the definitive answer.

There is a specialist solicitor involved in the case now, I believe. It took some time finding someone who would take it on.

If anyone has any further advice or suggestions, they are very welcome as it feels like we're talking to a brick wall at present.

Stranger_Than_Fiction

dmg24 wrote: »

It really frustrates me that the change in the law was supposed to stop situations like this. Unfortunately the authorities involved still believe they are above the law.

It was really concerning to see that, following the judge's unequivocal decision in Manchester, the city council still said they thought they had done the right thing.

dmg24

If you do need alternative legal advice or representation I would recommend Lucy Scott-Moncrieff. I don't know her personally, but her professional reputation in this area is second to none.

dmg24

Stranger_Than_Fiction wrote: »

It was really concerning to see that, following the judge's unequivocal decision in Manchester, the city council still said they thought they had done the right thing.

In Manchester there were procedural irregularities. What concerns me is that authorities will hide behind the 'we did it by the book' defence, even if the decision is unreasonable. It is an absolute minefield of an area, but I think it definitely (and very sadly) needs legal intervention.

LittleTinker

It seems to me to be a very dangerous game asking strangers to the case to sign petitions wanting a certain course of action.

How can we sign the petition without knowing the in's and out's of the case and without knowing what the other side has to say on the matter? None of us know Stephen or why he is being dealt with in this way.

It does not sit well with me that people are asked to sign for things they know little about.........the consequences might not be what is best.

DX2

Stranger_Than_Fiction wrote: »

I think they have given advice but will not get involved in specific cases. I will check that with Steven's dad and get back with the definitive answer.

There is a specialist solicitor involved in the case now, I believe. It took some time finding someone who would take it on.

If anyone has any further advice or suggestions, they are very welcome as it feels like we're talking to a brick wall at present.

Are the NAS not involved with the bloke that's getting extradiated to America for hacking.

Stranger_Than_Fiction

LittleTinker wrote: »

It seems to me to be a very dangerous game asking strangers to the case to sign petitions wanting a certain course of action.

How can we sign the petition without knowing the in's and out's of the case and without knowing what the other side has to say on the matter? None of us know Stephen or why he is being dealt with in this way.

It does not sit well with me that people are asked to sign for things they know little about.........the consequences might not be what is best.

That's why my first question was to ask if people would like to find out more about the case. You can look at the Facebook page as the link above shows or, if you do not have that facility, ask more questions. Of course you do not have to sign the petition (although 'strangers' sign petitions all the time for people/causes they do not personally know)!

And as for getting the other side, the LA are saying nothing about it except in case conferences. They will not speak to the press so you cannot hear what they say. You can read about the case in Private Eye or the Uxbridge Gazette or hear about it on Radio 4's You and Yours or on BBC London local tv news. This is not a court of law. Only one side can be presented and you will have to make your own mind up about what you think.

Anyone who knows about autism will recognise just how challenging this situation is to Steven. His world is consistent and safe and he is struggling to make sense of the changes that have happened. What the LA have not done is present a coherent case for detaining him. They talk about making things 'future proof' for example. Now tell me, even in our non-autistic world, how is it possible to make ANYTHING future-proof?

I could go on and on with the idiotic things which are happening but, as I said before, I am happy to answer any questions anyone has to ask. I will ask Steven's father to come and post on the forum to give a bit more information. You have the freedom to choose what you do. Unfortunately for Steven, that right has been removed.