Autism - Deprivation of Liberty order

Morty_007

Dr Cuckoo...i'm not sure I follow what you're saying...the excerpt you have quoted is from a letter talking about happenings in the past...and they are used to illustrate a suggestion that maybe the behaviour was not deliberately challenging but may only be a young man copying things he has seen in the past, not realising that those behaviours are not "socially acceptable"...I would try hard not to make that quote the reason you are supporting the continued immoral and illegal detention of this young man. Lets face it, he hardly (from that quote and the other things which have been written..) appears a risk to himself or others from that behaviour...does he?

shegirl

Dr_Cuckoo3 wrote: »

This is what Steven has been upto - according to the Facebook campaign page

http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=134345726596848&topic=189

"on 28th July "Steven threw a jar of cranberry sauce on the floor of the kitchen whilst laughing" and on 4th August "Steven took out a jar of vinegar and threw it onto floor, smashing it." I seem to remember a similar incident that Chris Y told me about from the week before the report where Steven broke a jar of Marmite on the kitchen floor."

If this thread is only for people who support the campaign , then kindly state this as I do not blindly support any campaign

He threw jars on the floor and laughed :eek: Oh how horrific...yes lets keep the poor lad locked up where he won't be kept properly just incase someone allows himo throw a jar on the floor again...

markneary

Very naughty of you Dr Cuckoo. You've posted that quote about the sauce out of context from the original post on the Facebook page. On that page I was explaining how Steven had been copying something he saw on an episode of Mr Bean and how it is very common for Steven (and many people with autism for that matter) to take scenes they have seen on the TV and act them out very literally.

shegirl

markneary wrote: »

Very naughty of you Dr Cuckoo. You've posted that quote about the sauce out of context from the original post on the Facebook page. On that page I was explaining how Steven had been copying something he saw on an episode of Mr Bean and how it is very common for Steven (and many people with autism for that matter) to take scenes they have seen on the TV and act them out very literally.

They sure do

Ignore the idiot...clearly one of those without a clue.Hope all is going well and there is some hope in sight x

ScarlettsMummy

Signed! I have a brother with autism and know what it's like, especially dealing with the LA. I don't believe how bad their treatment of you is!

Dr_Cuckoo3

shegirl wrote: »

They sure do

Ignore the idiot...clearly one of those without a clue.Hope all is going well and there is some hope in sight x

Excuse me madam - I am the idiot who bumped up this thread which had not been contributed to for 16 days and had been forgotten about

From the thread on the disability & dosh forum I knew that any posts not blindly supporting the campaign would receive an adverse response

If it had not been for me the issue would would have died out

I doubt that you were aware of the thread in the "disability & dosh" forum https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/2677607 since you have not contributed to it :idea:

You call me an idiot , I adhere to the posting guidlines of this forum and will refrain from stating my opinion of posters :silenced:


Your remark

shegirl wrote: »

Ignore the idiot...clearly one of those without a clue

could be directed towards someone with aspergers :beer:

Now - I have made over 100 Freedom of Information requests on the www.whatdotheyknow.com site and other requests privately and am someone who takes up issues that don't appeal to the masses , I don't jump on mass appeal bandwagons and am not interested in "high on emotion - low on facts" campaigns

Can you say the same ?

So my interests here are ;

1, the vicar's involvement - I don't think he was pleased with Steven for removing his glasses and perhaps used his standing to influence matters

2, whether the LA has exaggerated Steven's behaviour (I have knowledge in this area)

markneary wrote: »

the only way they can do that is by exagerating the challenging behaviour

However I am now a spectator and will not be doing anything myself to assist the campaign

markneary

In response to your questions Dr Cuckoo:

1) The Authority have refused to give details of the vicar, so we have been unable to speak to him. However, they confirmed again on Monday that the decision to serve the deprivation of liberty order was solely their decision.

2) I think I mentioned earlier that whilst Steven was at home we had 14 "incidents" over a 4 month period. Since he has been in the positive behaviour unit, they have recorded 306 "incidents" in a 7 month period. That is an enormous increase, I'm sure you'll agree. (The 306 incidents do not all involve physical contact with others by any means). I believe that the Authority have exaggerated many of the incidents, or chose to interpret them in a way that serves their purpose.

shegirl

markneary wrote: »

In response to your questions Dr Cuckoo:

1) The Authority have refused to give details of the vicar, so we have been unable to speak to him. However, they confirmed again on Monday that the decision to serve the deprivation of liberty order was solely their decision.

2) I think I mentioned earlier that whilst Steven was at home we had 14 "incidents" over a 4 month period. Since he has been in the positive behaviour unit, they have recorded 306 "incidents" in a 7 month period. That is an enormous increase, I'm sure you'll agree. (The 306 incidents do not all involve physical contact with others by any means). I believe that the Authority have exaggerated many of the incidents, or chose to interpret them in a way that serves their purpose.

My sons school does the same Mark.They will exaggerate and interpret things in the wrong manner to support what they want.The last one being after they were trying to force me to put him on medication for ages (wasn't needed,he was bored at school and the idiots were giving him 14 cakes in the morning session etc making him hyper...) as they are too dumb to teach him and aren't mentally capable of working with a severe autistic.They decided he was trying to kill himself (which obviously,when told to me after a week of alleged suicide incidents was horrible!!!) so even his psychs turned around and said he needs to go on medication.School were over the moon and said he can't go to school (this is NON residential by the way) unless he's medicated as he's such a danger to himself with the suicide attempts.Turned out that the 'incidents' were not only non incidents but that the last time he did actually do something that could have harmed him (without him realising and with a dopey assistant who made it all worse) they said to him "J you could die" so everytime he got a bit stressy or had a non-incident after and they got paniced he just repeated what they had previously told him and they thought he meant it:mad::mad::mad: But hey,it suited their purpose didn't it....

Will catch up on the facebook group in a bit.

markneary

The DoL is due for review on 20th September and this afternoon, I met the latest "Best Interests Assessor" to give my input.

She was very open and it gave me a good insight how Authority's are using the DoL to look after their own interests and has nothing to do with the best interests of the client.

As we know DoLs are only applicable to people in care homes or hospitals, so her brief is to only look at whether a deprivation is appropriate in Steven's current placement.

Now doesn't that get things off on the wrong foot. The fact that the placement itself is inappropriate or is contributing to the behaviours is irrelevant as far as they are concerned.

She told me that she observed Steven for three hours this morning and not once was he unsupervised - everywhere he went, someone followed. And that in her view is a deprivation of his liberty. I told her that at home this afternoon, Steven went on the computer for half an hour completely on his own - no supervision was needed.

Their position still is, despite my appeals, that neither Steven nor myself are entitled to an IMCA. An IMCA (in their eyes) is only appointed when the person or their representative disagrees with the deprivation. The fact that I am disagreeing to Steven being at the unit and that if he wasn't there, the DoL wouldnt be needed, is once again seen as irrelevant.

I'm going to have to send her the Department of Health stuff as she maintained that when considering "least restrictive options" it is not in the remit to consider the least restrictive options of possible placements (including home). But to see if the 2:1 and 1:1 support is the least restrictive option.

I asked her why everyone in a care home wasn't subject to a DoL then because everyone will need some support either out in the community or in the home and therefore aren't entirely free to do as they wish.

I find all this goes against why the DoLs legislation was introduced and seems all about the council protecting themselves. The number of times the word "risk" came up today was incredible.

Luisa1981

Hi Markneary,

I'm so sorry that you and your family are going through such a horrible time at the moment. Anything I know about Autism is from programmes on the TV and from what I understand, it's no wonder your poor son is kicking off - he's been taken away from his safe place and routine. It's not fair, it's really not.

I hope that he's back safely in his home quickly.

Good luck with your campaign.

:A