Woman jail by council for caring too much

FBaby

Read the court judgment. Clearly Wanda's behaviour became out of control and it is that behaviour, aimed at the council, but also accused to be aimed at her own father that caused the excessive decision.

What we do not know if that prompted her to lose all sense of reality in her battle. Is it a case of a dedicated daughter, who saw or heard things that raised great concern over the care of her father, and whose love for him prepared her to fight to no limit to protect her father? After all, we have heard recently of vulnerable adults being neglected in such horrible conditions whilst staying in council funded places that we supposed to be safe. Did she think this was happening but felt that no-one took her seriously, with the stress and worry over her dad make her lose all common sense?

Or is this woman a complete bully, who decided that she wanted her dad because she didn't like others controlling his life, or whatever other unpleasant reasons, who decided that she wasn't happy she wasn't getting her way, leading her to become a monster even towards her own dad?

My gut feeling is that all this stemmed for misunderstanding, that the social workers failed to convey to her the true risks he faced if not under clinical supervision and why she wouldn't be able to provide this care, and a lack of reassurance that the house was really providing proper care to her beloved dad.

sparkycat2

FBaby wrote: »

Read the court judgment.

"John Maddocks has four children, three of whom were respondents to the proceeding before me which concluded at Easter of this year"

It appears to have been the word of three of his children vs the word of the social worker and care home staff with taped bits of threatening messages from the daughter who believed her farther was being mistreated. With the daughter wanting her farther to be able to testify himself as to what was going on.

My gut feeling is that the Judge should have gone and visted John Maddox in the care home and talked to him without the care home staff or social worker or family members being present and should have treated the testimony of social worker and care home staff with serious reservations given the concerns of the family, rather than as impartial experts as to John Maddox state of health, care needs, and what was best for John Maddox.

bigboybrother

sparkycat2 wrote: »

The daughter got sent to prison for "trying to save her farther's life" .

Rubbish!!

The daughter repeatedly ignored & disobeyed an order that was handed down by a judge.

She was jailed for 'Contempt of Court'. You can't just decide that you don't agree with such an order and do as you wish. You should do the right thing and challenge it in court. She deserved what she got - the court has to show that it has teeth sometimes.


Much the same as someone who refuses to pay their Council Tax and has the means to do so - they are not sent to prison for non payment but because they put two fingers up to the court and said that they had no intention of obeying the order.

Then we have the couple who are arguing over a divorce settlement. The husband is refusing to disclose what happened to his millions. He is regularly being sent down for ignoring a court order.

molerat

Woman jailed by judge for contempt of court.

Not such a good headline though

teajug

sparkycat2 wrote: »

"John Maddocks has four children, three of whom were respondents to the proceeding before me which concluded at Easter of this year"

It appears to have been the word of three of his children vs the word of the social worker and care home staff with taped bits of threatening messages from the daughter who believed her farther was being mistreated. With the daughter wanting her farther to be able to testify himself as to what was going on.

My gut feeling is that the Judge should have gone and visted John Maddox in the care home and talked to him without the care home staff or social worker or family members being present and should have treated the testimony of social worker and care home staff with serious reservations given the concerns of the family, rather than as impartial experts as to John Maddox state of health, care needs, and what was best for John Maddox.

Of course the judge should have visited the home and see what takes place in these homes. But of courses the people that are supposed to be managing them would pull out all the stops and he would not see whats goes on behind closed doors in these places.
Lot more like the link just do a this by simple search will bring lots up. Surprise not the daily mail either....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9219495/Nurse-filmed-slapping-elderly-Alzheimers-sufferer-at-care-home.html

kurgon

teajug wrote: »

Of course the judge should have visited the home and see what takes place in these homes. But of courses the people that are supposed to be managing them would pull out all the stops and he would not see whats goes on behind closed doors in these places.
Lot more like the link just do a this by simple search will bring lots up. Surprise not the daily mail either....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9219495/Nurse-filmed-slapping-elderly-Alzheimers-sufferer-at-care-home.html

THat's the job of the CQc
and the judge may have actualy visited the home - have you asked him?

teajug

kurgon wrote: »

THat's the job of the CQc
and the judge may have actualy visited the home - have you asked him?

No, have you?

GMbabies

We've lived under the illusion of justice for too long.

The court paperwork threatened to seize the family’s assets if we spoke to the press or anybody else about this,

We will soon not be able to say anything. If you haven't watched '1984'....this is where it's going.