Our Aim is to
To Help Others
Reach Their Full Potential
![[New!]](images/Bullets/smallnew.gif){kind=small}
CLICK
ON THUMBNAILS Of Pictures For Full-Sized View
Videos
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adult Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder
top
Adult ADHD Dr. Porras
ADHD FACTS [Video]
BBC NEWS UK Call for more children in care
UN Report
Criticises
Britain's
'Demonising'
And
Jailing
Of
Children
Geneva body calls for ban on parental smacking
Ministers are urged to regulate reality TV shows
The Guardian
Saturday October 4 2008
Owen Bowcott
Article history
Too many children are being imprisoned in Britain and demonised as criminals, said a report published yesterday by an influential UN body. In a document presenting more than 150 recommendations, and described by some campaign groups as "devastating", the body set out a detailed critique of Britain's legal and social shortcomings.
The Geneva-based UN Committee on the Rights of the Child welcomed positive work done by the Labour government since the last examination, in 2002, which included the Every Child Matters agenda, but issued its third successive call for Britain to ban corporal punishment.
The UK, it said, should prohibit, as a matter of priority, all corporal punishment in the family, including smacking.
The committee, which monitors states' compliance with the UN convention on the rights of the child, urged the government to ensure that corporal punishment was explicitly prohibited in schools.
Noting "with appreciation" Gordon Brown's higher spending on child poverty targets, the report said, however, that those increases were insufficient to eradicate poverty and tackle inequalities. A lack of consistent budgetary analysis has made it difficult to assess the impact on child-friendly policies, it added.
On raising the age of criminal responsibility, the report called on the government to follow international standards of justice and raise the level - at present set at eight years in Scotland, and 10 in England, but higher in most other developed nations. The committee expressed concern about the high number of children given custodial sentences and denied the statutory right to education.
The demonisation of young people was a prominent theme. The report regretted a "general climate of intolerance and negative public attitudes towards children" in the media and elsewhere. It suggested the government should "regulate children's participation in TV programmes, notably reality shows, so as to ensure [the shows] do not violate their rights".
During public hearings in Geneva, questions were raised about the TV series Supernanny. Responding, Channel 4 said yesterday it worked within Ofcom guidelines to safeguard children's welfare.
The UN document criticised ultrasound devices used to disperse youngsters, and asbos, both of which, it said, "may violate the rights of children to freedom of movement and peaceful assembly". Another worry was the national DNA database, which keeps the records of children whether or not they have offended. The report calls for stronger regulations for data protection.
Carolyne Willow, national coordinator of the Children's Rights Alliance for England, called the UN report devastating, and said: "Ministers must act on the recommendations without delay."
Carolyn Hamilton, director of the Children's Legal Centre, a national charity, said: "Too many vulnerable children are being left unable to exercise their right to education." Stephen Jakobi, convenor of the Just Umbrella group, called for the age of criminal responsibility to be immediately raised to 12.
The children's minister, Beverley Hughes, said: "We will give the committee's recommendations the careful consideration they deserve. I look forward to publishing progress on our Children's Plan later in the year. This will set out ... strategies for tackling many of the issues the UN committee has highlighted."
Anger At Lack Of Support For Group
Published Date: 09 September 2008
Whitby Gazette
A WHITBY charity which helps children and adults with hidden disabilities has hit out at organisations it says are unwilling to attend pioneering meetings in the town to help address the issues they face.
In the past year several multi-agency meetings have been held to encourage “partnership working” and to improve the life chances of people with conditions such as dyslexia, Dyspraxia, Asperger syndrome and ADHD.
Such conditions can have a big impact on sufferers’ day to day lives and can often make it difficult for them to seek and gain employment.
The focus of the meetings has been to look into the gaps in services around access to employment, training and educational opportunities for sufferers.
But Mike Fewster of ADDept, a local charity which helps people with hidden impairments, says many organisations are not getting on board including the Youth Offending Team, the Anchorage which helps many people with hidden impairments and CAMHS – the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services.
He said: “We’re in 2008 and still we have organisations getting funds to support disadvantaged people and failing them completely because they don’t know how to connect with them.”
“There are organisations out there but they’ve got to work together and accept they have a responsibility.
“We need everyone on board.”
That’s why we are holding these meetings.
“They are open to anyone working with vulnerable people and hidden disabilities.”
Organisations already involved with the project include
|
|
Dyslexia Action, |
|
|
North Yorkshire County Council, |
|
|
The National Autism Society, |
|
|
Extended Schools and Children’s Centres, |
|
|
The Cambridge Centre, |
|
|
Connexions |
|
|
Job Centre Plus. |
One example of the work being carried out as a result of the meetings is the development of a screening tool questionnaire which has been developed by ADDept and Dyslexia Action to help identify people with hidden impairments so that appropriate support can be put in place.
|
|
Coast and Moors Voluntary Action, |
|
|
North Yorkshire Police, |
|
|
Yorkshire Coast Homes |
|
|
Compass |
Have already taken part in a trial questionnaire and it’s hoped that once finalized it will be rolled out nationwide.
Ian Peck, locality manager for Coast and Moors Voluntary Action added: “There is a danger that young people in particular are being let down and it is important that all the organisations who have contact with this vulnerable group, work together so that people get the support that they need”
“The meetings are all about putting together a structure which supports vulnerable people and we hope that they key partners who have been invited to the meeting come along to give us their valuable input.”
The next meeting is at 10am today at Eskdale School and will be run by Nigel Ogley, head of behaviour services for North Yorkshire County Council.
A spokesman for North Yorkshire County Council said the fact that a senior officer of North Yorkshire County Council who also sits on the management of the Youth Offending Team Board attends the meetings, shows their commitment to the project.
A spokesman for Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust when asked about CAMHS and the Anchorage said they have attended previous meetings and will attend others when they can where appropriate.
“We would like to assure ADDept and indeed the people of Whitby that although we cannot attend every meeting held by this group we act upon and get involved in the topics that relate to the services we provide,” he said.
Last Updated: 05 September 2008 1:24 PM
Source: Whitby Gazette Tuesday
Location: Whitby
Editor at the Whitby Gazette
CHARITY BOSS ARRESTED FOR TRUST PHONE CALLS
New Film To Educate Public About Disorder
Support group blames council policy
for exclusions rise
From the archive,
first published Wednesday 17th Oct 2007.
"WE told you so."
That is the message to council chiefs from Bob Breen chairman of ADDept, the Yorkshire support group for people with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD).
He made his comments after The Press revealed the number of cases of children being booted out of York's secondary schools is set to soar by more than a fifth this year, and blamed council policies for the figures.
The Press reported yesterday that new figures released by City of York Council show the number of permanent exclusions is set to rise from 44 last year to about 53 this year - an increase of 20.5 per cent.
Mr Breen said: "In the past York has had a good track record dealing with cases where children have been diagnosed with ADHD or cases on the autistic spectrum, but there has been a change of officers and that no longer seems to be the case.
"When it comes to excluded kids they are bringing in everybody apart from the families of the children - they never get together and they are always treated in isolation. I read the article in The Press and I just thought: I told you so'. We feel like we are coming up against a brick wall with the council.
"The parents that are struggling and getting their kids kicked out of school are given no opportunity to get together and feed back their experiences to each other and the council."
His comments were supported by Mike Fewster, ADDept's national coordinator, who said: "Nobody's teaching the teachers in York how to handle the problems that many youngsters with ADHD or autistic spectrum children have.”
David Ellis, head teacher at York High School, said it was generally Key Stage 3 pupils - 11 to 14-year-olds - who were being excluded.
He said: "Neither the schools nor the local authority want to be excluding pupils if they can avoid it, because it isn't really a satisfactory solution. My own view is that there have been increasing numbers of young people in mainstream school provision now that wouldn't have been in the past and they find it increasingly difficult to cope.
"I think you'll find the increase in exclusions is mainly among younger pupils."
Pete Dwyer, the council's director of Learning, Culture and Children's Services, said: "In York, some children are able to flourish in a mainstream environment, with support. Others benefit from being placed within a specialist Enhanced Resource Provision (ERP) within a mainstream school.
"A very small minority need highly-specialised placements in residential placements out of the city."
He said: "York has been proactive in developing its own range of specialist and mainstream provision, which includes autism-specific facilities at Hob Moor Oaks and Applefields Special Schools and a highly successful Enhanced Resource Provision for secondary age pupils at Fulford School."
Chief In Call To Help District's Youngsters
- Whitby Gazette --
Article By Sheila Whitton
City Needs A Diagnosis
Yorkshire Post
Article By Nicola FiField
Crime Up In The Sticks
Coast Talk
Myth Bursting Hidden Disabilities
Still No Response from the Primary Care Trust
As yet ADDept have not received a response to this letter, Albeit repeated phone calls and attempts from our colleague to get all participants around the table. It’s Now Been 2 Years
To The Chief Executive of Our New Primary Care Trust,
Dr. Janet Soo-Chung
The Hamlet
Hornbeam Park
Harrogate
HG2 8RE
10 October 2006
Dear Dr Soo-Chung
May we please briefly introduce ourselves as you, who may not be fully aware of the work of our support group? We are a special needs support group operating 24/7/365 unique help lines. We have a specialist expertise on hidden disabilities of a behavioural diagnosis. Our entire annual budget is less than £1200 and we make no charge for our service. To ensure we remain fully independent, we do not except any kind of funding from local councils. PCT’s pharmaceutical companies etc.
We are the only specialist mental health charity in the UK which anybody can contact us 24/7/365 to speak to a real person.
We are all 100% voluntary and have several generations of personal experience. We have been operating in Yorkshire for the last decade and have gained a valuable insight into services across our region. We have been responsible for pioneering hidden disability training and guidelines for a wide variety of local and national government departments.
Our most resent success has been for Jobcentre Plus & North Yorkshire C.C. ADHD Guidelines.
Some parts of Yorkshire such as Sheffield and Harrogate have a successful and friendly child & adult ADHD service. Others such as York, the diagnosis of ADHD (DSM 1V) does not exist and yet they manage to squander large ineffectual expenditure rather than modest intelligent investment
Our old Selby & York PCT has also managed to squander funding on 10 till 4 answer phone charities who enjoy attending pointless mental health forums. Some of these so called career charity worker’s top priority appears to favour self preservation at the expense of patient services.
We look forward to a larger and more efficient PCT which truly benefits the patients and procures them more choice. We feel it in the public interest to share with you, information of what has actually been happening on the ground and examples of good practice in ADHD mental health that if adopted could benefit all concerned. Traditional psychiatric approaches as experienced in York do not work for someone with ADHD
Over the last decade we have met with most of the various directors of service who have had nothing to offer for our people with ADHD: therefore we would very much appreciate if you could please arrange an appointment for to meet with yourself as Chief Executive and your appropriate director of service at the same time.
Yours sincerely
Bob Breen (chair/founder/trustee & volunteer)
Mick Fewster Continues
To Brake Down Doors & Open Hearts
Mick Fewster Is Back volunteering full time for ADDept.
He has taken up the role of National Co-ordinator; where true to form he is very successfully getting agencies together to assess and support those with hidden impairments.
More family cases go behind closed doors
From The Times June 21, 2007
Frances Gibb
Thousands of children's care cases will be heard behind closed doors under proposals from the Lord Chancellor yesterday that extend courts' powers to exclude the media.
In a significant about-turn, Lord Falconer of Thoroton ditched earlier plans to give the media a right to attend family courts after opposition from children and children's organisations. He admitted that he had changed his mind about opening up the courts, as outlined last year.
But he insisted that this would allow more and better information to emerge and that it would better protect the interest of children and the public.
In addition, instead of opening up the county courts and High Court, which operate largely behind closed doors in children's cases, he outlined plans to bring consistency across all courts, including closing magistrates' courts. However, magistrates and judges will have power to allow in the media, on application.
Lord Falconer said yesterday: "I have listened to the views of children and young people. The clear message was that the media should not be given an automatic right to attend family courts as this could jeopardise children's rights to privacy and anonymity.”
The new approach would improve information coming out of courts rather than "concentrate on who can go in", he said.
Lord Falconer lodged details of his amended proposals in Parliament yesterday, prompting a three-month consultation period ending on October 1.
After that, some of the changes will be introduced by order, while others will require legislation in Parliament.
A pilot scheme will be conducted to assess the impact of the new rules on those affected.
Media ban: Lord Falconer
Courts that decide the fate of broken families must be held in secret, the Lord Chancellor has ruled.
Lord Falconer crushed an attempt to open the proceedings to public scrutiny and declared that” children’s right to privacy" comes first.
In a document called Openness in the Family Courts - A New Approach, he proposes even tighter restrictions on what can be said about family cases.
The clampdown is in direct contrast to the views of his own Minister of State Harriet Harman and comes amid concern over decisions taken in family courts.
Last year the Daily Mail highlighted the way a couple in Essex had their children taken from them after courts held in secret decided they were too intellectually slow to bring them up - even though no harm had come to the children.
Page 2
An academic study later found that such families were being singled out by social workers and should instead be given support.
Torn apart:
The Essex family, with faces hidden to protect their identity
And a High Court judge last year found that family courts had allowed social workers to take a nine-year-old girl from her family "on a whim". A court ordered the girl to be taken into care on the basis of 13 false assertions by a social services manager.
The document provoked anger from fathers' protest groups which have campaigned against secrecy, saying it hides bias and incompetence.
Families Need Fathers, the pressure group that has co- operated with ministers to try to end what it says is bias against men, said its views had been ignored. Secrecy, it added, would undermine confidence in the courts.
A spokesman for high-profile Fathers4Justice said: "To have secret justice in a 21st century democracy is a disgrace and goes against everything we are supposed to believe in.”
The family courts are not just a closed shop - they are more like something out of North Korea. The way they work means parents have fewer rights than terrorists.”
The Ministry of Justice under Lord Falconer's leadership has ordered the family courts to remain closed and proposed that coroners should get new powers to keep the media out of their courts.
It also established a new Court of Protection to rule over the lives of the dying and incapacitated which will make life- or- death decisions behind closed doors.
But an attempt by the ministry to restrict the Freedom of Information Act through stiff costs and limits is likely to be blocked by Gordon Brown when he becomes premier next week.
Lord Falconer's decision to maintain secrecy in the family courts was a humiliating reverse for Miss Harman. Last year she said that, because of public disquiet, the courts should be open to reporting by accredited members of the media.
But the Lord Chancellor said yesterday: "I have listened to the views of children and young people. The clear message was the media should not be given an automatic right to attend family courts as this could jeopardise children's rights to privacy and anonymity.”
He gave weight to a survey of 200 children in which those asked said they feared being reported in the media. The Lord Chancellor said children worry about "people who live in their neighbourhoods finding out about how the courts have dealt with their family”.
He also took into account the views of those who "protect, support and represent' children, such as lawyers and heavily State-funded charities such as the NSPCC and the National Children’s Bureau.
The consultation paper from the Ministry of Justice yesterday says courts should remain closed but judges should in some cases release anonymous transcripts of cases.
The document said media representatives could apply to be allowed in to specific cases.
But the courts should stay closed because organisations such as the NCB believe newspapers and broadcasters are irresponsible and will concentrate on celebrity cases.
Family hearings held in magistrates' courts, which are currently open to the public, will be closed in future, the paper said. It recommended setting up websites to explain how the courts work.
Critics questioned the right of the NSPCC and NCB to have their view given precedence as they take almost £20million from the State.
Wednesday, 20 Jun 2007 17:07
Page 3
The government has promised to improve openness in Family Courts, but said it will still protect the privacy of those involved.
Ministry of Justice secretary Lord Falconer unveiled proposals designed to improve transparency in the Family Courts system.
However, the recommendations were criticised by some campaigners for not going far enough to hold social workers and officials to account and barring parents from discussing their case.
Lord Falconer said it was important to protect the privacy of those involved in the Courts, including children.
He said: "Family courts make far-reaching decisions which permanently affect the lives of the people involved. Where children are involved, their welfare must be of paramount importance.
"We will focus on providing better information about family proceedings to the public. In certain cases we will give more information to the people involved in proceedings, including to adults who were involved in family proceedings when they were children.”
After meeting with children, Lord Falconer claimed many are concerned the media should not have an automatic right to attend Court hearings to protect their privacy and anonymity.
Reforms will therefore focus on the information coming out of courts, rather than who can go in.
In a pilot scheme, courts will provide more information on how they reach decisions, including for people who went through the system as children.
In extreme cases, for example if a child is permanently removed from their parents, courts will consider releasing an anonymous transcript or summary.
The Ministry of Justice will also create a new information hub providing people with simple information on Family Courts and what they do.
Campaigners complain, however, that the reforms do not go far enough and do not protect parents against a miscarriage of justice.
John Hamming MP, chairman of Justice for Families, said the proposals risked increasing secrecy in Family Courts and do not allow parents to campaign against decisions.
Mr Hamming said: "The government is actually proposing more secrecy in family court proceedings than exists at the moment.”
There are clearly masses of miscarriages of justice. However, the government wants to prevent parents campaigning against the miscarriages of justice by preventing parents talking about their children after a court case."
He alleged babies are taken into care to meet adoption targets and the government’s response is to mould the system to stop people complaining about it.”
The secrecy in the Family Courts acts generally to protect misbehaviour by some professionals rather than children," Mr Hammond concluded.
Page 4
Campaign group Families Need Fathers also claimed the proposals do not go far enough and will not restore public confidence in the Family Courts system.
Trying To Prevent Closed
Courts For Children's
Government backs down on media access to family courts
Proposals to give the media the right to attend family courts are scrapped following opposition from children’s' organisations
Times Online and PA
Lord Falconer of Thoroton, the Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary, today backed down on proposals to allow journalists to attend family court hearings in the wake of opposition from organisations representing the rights of children.
The idea was floated by the Government last year as a way of putting a stop to claims that the courts are secretive, particularly in cases in which children are taken into care or custody is granted to one parent.
Protesters from Fathers4Justice called for the press to be allowed to expose what they claim are miscarriages of justice denying father’s access to their children.
But a consultation exercise revealed strong opposition from organisations such as the NSPCC, the Children's Commissioner and lawyers representing children, in addition to 200 young people who took part.
Their message was that having reporters in court would increase anxiety for children and parents.
Lord Falconer, QC, today put forward alternative proposals to make family courts more open by requiring judges to provide more information about how they came to their decisions.
Under the new measures, parents will be provided with written explanations of courts' decisions, which will be kept by the court and made available to the children involved when they grow old enough to understand them.
And in cases of public interest, transcripts or summaries of cases will be provided to the media, after removing any information which could identify the child involved.
Lord Falconer said: "I have listened to the views of children and young people. The clear message was that the media should not be given an automatic right to attend family courts as this could jeopardise children's rights to privacy and anonymity.”
We need instead a new approach which concentrates on improving the information coming out of family courts, rather than on who can go in.”
Under the new rules, reporters will be able to apply to attend family court hearings or to receive written summaries of cases, but the decision will rest with the judge. The same will apply to family proceedings in magistrate's courts, which are currently open to the press in most cases.
Lord Falconer today lodged details of his amended proposals in Parliament, prompting a three-month consultation period ending on October 1. Following that, some of the changes will be introduced by
Page 5
order, while others will require legislation.
A pilot scheme will be conducted to assess the impact of the new rules on those affected.
Jeremy Abraham, head of family law at Russell Jones and Walker, said: "This is a better idea than throwing open the domestic courts to the public.
If it happens, it will encourage appeals unless judges take greater care than they do now. "Although judgments are routinely tape-recorded, transcripts are not usually provided unless an appeal is seriously contemplated.
If judgments are always transcribed, I expect many more appeals, given the tendency to disagree when seeing a judgment 'in black and white'."
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article1960763.ece
June 20, 2007
This is the html version of the file
http://www.familieslink.co.uk/download/july07/Closing%20down%20the%20Courts.pdf.
YOU'RE NOT CLEVER ENOUGH TO HAVE CHILDREN
-
SO WE ARE TAKING THEM AWAY -
DAILY MAIL - SATURDAY, 7 TH MAY 2005
The photographs on the sitting room walls are of happy times in a young family’s life. In pride of place are snapshots of a heartbreakingly pretty toddler the very image of her mother at the same age.
They chronicle her growing up playing on a slide, sitting on here mums knee and smiling into the camera. More recent pictures show the new addition, a little brother, still a baby shaking a rattle and gazing at his father.
Yet this is all the parents have left of their children. For the three year old girl and eleven month old boy were taken away from them by Essex county council last October and they have not seen the children for nearly six months.
In three weeks time, their son and daughter will be adopted by a new “forever mummy and daddy”, as the social services appallingly saccharine jargon puts it, and contact with their birth parents will be reduced to twice yearly letters and photographs.
So, what terrible crime did this couple commit to have been punished so cruelly? Did they beat their children? Was there sexual abuse? Were the children left roaming the streets?
No. But the reasons for the brutal fracturing of this family are just as shocking. For these parents have been judged to be “too slow” intellectually to have children.
The local authority has ruled that the youngsters were at risk of neglect because their mother didn’t follow proper routines, took too long to brush their teeth and change the baby’s nappies, left the little girl to play alone, had difficulty learning how to cook simple meals and did not encourage her daughter to sit on a potty.
Perversely, the father was criticised for being too rigid in his routines with the children, and for becoming irritated by interference from the local authority.
Social workers who assessed the couple admitted that the children were loved, kept clean, well-dressed and fed-but still recommended that they be removed because the parents were not intelligent enough to understand the children’s needs.
That judgement has, of course, had a devastating effect on the couple, who cannot be named in order to protect the children’s identity, and raises the most fundamental human question of what makes a fit parent-and do social workers have the right to make such judgements?
In this case, the mother, who is 28, has an IQ of 60 and was diagnosed as having a mild learning disability as a child. She went to a special school and learned to read and write, but is candid about the difficulties she has in understanding simple ideas.
Surely, she explains that she likes to have written instructions so she can absorb them at her own pace, but she takes a full part in our discussions about the children. The father who is 37 and her partner of ten years has also been described as having learning difficulties despite expert assessments to the contrary.
He is an unsophisticated gently spoken man, but takes his responsibilities as breadwinner and father very seriously. He has worked for a large manufacturing company for 22 years, and does much of the house work and cooking.
He has a detailed grasp of the chain of events that have destroyed his family, recalling myriad names, dates and official decisions with ease.
Sitting together in their two bed-bedroom council flat, their distress is palpable. The mother says;” I want my children back. Without them I can’t live, really”.
When the social workers say they have taken them because I don’t have a routine for the children, it isn’t fair. They say I can’t do the things the way they want me to.
They think I am stupid-but I am not. I have always taught my little girl about road safety. They think she will overtake me and be looking after me, but she loved to help with the baby and everything.
She struggles to control her emotions as she recalls the day her children were take from her.
“When they took them, I went barmy I had to go into hospital because I was so upset. We have been trying to get them back ever since.
“But they told us the children are having a new forever mum and dad and that our little girl doesn’t like us anymore and is not asking for us-and that she is drawing pictures of her new forever mum and dad, not us. It really upsets me.
The father adds” They took the children away because they thought our little girls development was delayed and her need were not being met.
“They said she was slower than others her age-she was slow in walking and her speech was late developing, but she talked in the end and once she started walking she was soon running. Children develop at different rates, don’t they?
“But they said her needs were not being met and she wouldn’t reach her full potential if she stayed with us.
The case was heard in the family courts, which operate in complete secrecy. There powerful courts which deal with thousands of families each year, sit without jury or public scrutiny to protect the children.
The corollary is that parents are left fighting desperate battles behind closed doors. Those who protest or challenge this draconian state of affairs are threatened with imprisonment, as a lone county councillor discovered when he took up the couple’s case.
Essex county council took out an injunction to silence Barry Aspinell when he began investigating the case, but he refused to be cowed. The liberal democrat councillor risked going to prison for contempt of court in order to bring the case into the public domain, and last week, he won the battle to discuss it.
He said “There has never been any accusation of harm to the children. This is about the parents IQ. I think it is absolutely disgraceful and heart rendering and the local authority has allowed a section of its operations to make a judgement on people like that. I have called for a full enquiry into this sorry business as a matter of urgency”.
Essex county councils general scrutiny committee looked at whether it had been over zealous in placing children with adoptive parents last year after national concerns were raised about the growing number of adoptions. It reported that Essex “meets or surpasses all national requirements”.
The committee did, however concede there was room for improvement in how the council dealt with both parents.
Tom Smith-Hughes, chairman of the general scrutiny committee, said” It is clear that in placing the well-being of children at the centre of the adoption process in line with national policy, more can be done to explain the process to both parents. I am glad such improvements are being put in place”.
But it appears that for this couple, nothing can stop the final adoption hearing later this month. The couple know there is little they can do, but are adamant their story should be told.
Their daughter was born a healthy 7lb 13ox in June 2001.The couple had been together for six years, but the baby was unplanned, they admit, a shock.
The mother developed post-natal depression following a difficult birth, and was put on anti depressants to help her cope. But she claims she settled down well to motherhood with the help of her partner and health visitors.
It was when the baby was three months old that Essex social services got involved. There were concerns about the child’s weight-gain. And a social worker was asked to join the learning disabilities team and health visitors in keeping an eye on the family. But within twelve months, there were ten different professionals involved.
“There has been too much interfering, too many people watching us says the mother.
Hardly surprisingly, being under such daily scrutiny began to take its toll on the couple. Initially they co-operated with the authorities-even welcoming two social workers into the family home between 7.45am and 5.45pm every day for three weeks-but they felt totally betrayed when the official reports on their behaviour were, they say, both inaccurate and unfair.
The first, completed in June 2003 said that both parents had “some degree of learning disabilities”
The father flatly denies that he ever had a disability, and the error was reluctantly acknowledged by the local authority almost a year later.
There was a great detail about the mother’s bathroom habits, while a whole section on how long she took to brush her teeth in the morning and the effect this would have on their child.
More seriously it repeated allegations that the father had a tendency to lose his temper with his partner, although the claims were based on hearsay.
It also stated that the police were called once by a neighbour who claimed to have heard shouting and the baby screaming inside the flat. Essex police confirmed that they had responded to the call but” had no concerns at the house, there had been no signs of a disturbance and no one was making any allegations.
The first report concluded that the child was loved and her parents wanted the best for her.
But the mother was accused of failing to provide” adequate stimulation to allow her to reach her full potential and there was a warning that if the child had that stimulation she may well overtake her mother in her abilities and become her carer. Whatever happens the parents couldn’t win.
The child was put on the at risk register by social services two months later under the scrutiny of “neglect”, and the authority applied for an interim care order for the girl in march 2004.
One month later, with the mother pregnant again, a group of professionals involved in the day-to-day care of the family met to decide whether to put the couples unborn son on the at risk register as well.
At this meeting a support worker said a second child would not be any more stressful than any other mother, and one of the health visitors said that the couple were coping quite well with the right support, but the mother lost confidence when she was put under constant scrutiny by experts.
The issue of the fathers temper was raised again, but one local authority worker said that the anger-management sessions arranged by the council was discontinued because “he did not have a problem” and another pointed out that he had lost his temper only when frustrated by interference in his family. Then, in an astonishing voice face, the meeting voted by four to one to take the girl off the at-risk register and take no action on the unborn child.
But the chairman of the meeting was outraged by the decision and demanded that his dissent be recorded, saying later it was the wrong decision and “the couples disability does impact on their ability to parent their children.
He then called on another meeting less than a month later, on the basis of a second assessment report, and took another vote. This time the professionals decided by four votes to two to put both children on the at risk register.
The couple, who went to many of the meetings to discuss their children’s future, are at a loss to explain how things changed so rapidly.
“At the meeting last April, the father says, a lot of people were supporting us and our little girl was taken off the at risk register and they voted not to put the baby, who wasn’t even born, on the register. But a month later, the children were put back on the at risk register. How can this happen?
But matters took a turn for the worse. A social worker called at the flat to tell them court proceedings were being started to remove the children from them altogether, and on October 8 last year they were taken away.
The mother says “They were taken into council care at the court hearing. The judge said neither of us had done anything wrong. I was told it was because I had jogged routines- I didn’t do things in the right order.
“They took the children away while we were still in court and they were being looked after by their grandmother.
The father takes up the story as his wife begins to cry, saying “There were two social workers waiting outside my mums door for the verdict. When the doorbell went, my little girl ran to the door because she thought it was me.. My mum was too upset to put them in the car, so the social workers did it.
“It was about ten days before we saw them, and then we had contact for only one-and-a-half hours every week at a family centre. It was very difficult for us and out little girl. The poor thing didn’t know what was going on.
That slender thread of contact was broken in November after, driven to distraction, the mother pulled the social workers hair at the end of a traumatic visit. She says; they wouldn’t let us take photos of the children and they were criticising me for everything I did, and I had enough so I pulled her hair. I hear she is still off with stress and we have not seen the children since.
Essex county council said in a statement yesterday that its priority in every case was to ensure the well being of the children concerned, pointing out that cases can be complex and that the court takes the final decision.
It adds “The view of Essex county council is that a loving and secure family gives a child the best possible start in life. The vast majority of the work of our children’s social work team is to support families through difficult times to keep them together.
“In a very small number of cases, this simply isn’t possible. The story of a child who is adopted or fostered rarely has a happy beginning, but so often this gives the child the opportunity and security that only a loving home can provide”.
Which still leaves the couple struggling to understand what they have done wrong and to cope with the thought that they can never be parents again?
The father says quietly;” Last November the community nurse told us that any baby we had would be put on the at risk register and taken away.
His partner adds;” We don’t want any more babies, I only wanted two anyway.
The children will never be forgotten. The couple sent presents for their daughter and son at Christmas, but were not allowed to see them open them.
The father says;” Christmas was horrendous, We gave the children a loads of presents-two big sack loads, but we didn’t know that they got them until a few weeks ago. It is their birthdays next month, but we can’t see them. It is too much to bear.
We have heard our little boy has had a brain scan, but we don’t know why because they won’t tell us”
The mother adds;” In court, they said our little girl would have a better life, but I said she had a good life with us”. We went to Clacton to a holiday caravan and on day trips to parks and a farm place.
“We were just told that they were going to be adopted and that was the end of it. Our only contact is a twice yearly post box, when we can send a letters and get pictures of them. That makes me so upset because I don’t really want to do that. I miss them and I wonder what they think”
The Editor of the Daily Mail makes a judgement on future articles by the public perception/response of/to such articles. The feedback is one indication.
E-mail Fiona Barton fiona.barton@dailymail.co.uk NOW!
Summaries of cases that concern more than one category of complaint appear under all relevant category headings
Adult care services 11 case summaries - 3 NEW Mar-Apr 2008
Children and family services 3 case summaries - 1 NEW April 2008
Adult care services
Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council (04/C/17057)
Further report (first report found maladministration causing injustice)
Trafford Council’s rejection of an Ombudsman’s recommendation to waive the repayment of a housing grant acts against the legitimate interests of an elderly woman with mental health problems who it has wronged, said the Ombudsman. She had asked the Council to remedy the injustice caused, but in her second critical report she says “I am dismayed that it has responded in what I can only describe as a cavalier manner to the prejudice of a very vulnerable citizen.”
In her first report, issued on 30 November 2006 following an independent and thoroughly researched investigation, the Ombudsman criticised the Council for not having ensured that the woman fully understood the terms and conditions of the housing renovation grant at the time she signed the application, and for officers advising councillors that the woman’s mental state was not relevant. She recommended that, in the unusual circumstances, it should exercise its discretion and waive the repayment of the grant.
‘Ms Walker’ complained on behalf of her mother, ‘Mrs Walker’ (not their real names) who suffered from severe mental illness over a long period. In spring 1996 Mrs Walker enquired about a renovation grant for her home.
If someone who received a renovation grant sold or moved out of their property within a specified time period, the council could require partial repayment. Between the time when Mrs Walker first enquired about a grant and the time she applied for one, the time period when this rule applied was extended from three to five years. But no-one appears to have explained this to Mrs Walker who, when she signed the application in January 1998, was an in-patient in a psychiatric ward. In June 1998, the grant was approved.
The result of this was that Ms Walker, who by then had power of attorney for her mother, arranged to sell the house in the erroneous belief that the old rules applied. Had those rules applied then the Council could have recovered none of the grant. Had the daughter known the truth she could have acted to delay the sale for another year, after which no recovery could have been made. In the event the grant conditions were breached and the Council insisted on a full repayment.
The Council did agree to review its existing policy on the repayment of grants and to identify possible improvements, but it is now obliged to consider this further report.
“I deplore the officers’ continued resistance to accepting my findings of fact, contrary to established case law.” said the Ombudsman, “I ask the Council to reconsider its position and waive the payment of this grant.”
15 May 2007
North Yorkshire County Council (05/C/13158)
Maladministration causing injustice
North Yorkshire County Council failed to properly consider the assessed needs of a woman who required mental health aftercare. The Ombudsman found that the Council failed to consider whether its choice of care home for the woman would meet her need for frequent family contact, a key part of her assessment. She was also critical of the Council’s delay in making a decision about who could contribute to the cost of the home.
‘Mrs Trent’ (not her real name) needed aftercare under Section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (following compulsory detention for treatment) and became a resident in a care home. Her daughter, ‘Mrs Medway’ (not her real name) complained about the issues of payment for care, and whether the home selected by the Council could meet her mother’s assessed needs.
The law and guidance on local authority responsibility for fully funding the costs of aftercare under Section 117 of the Mental Health Act was clear. However, there was no specific statutory provision, case law or guidance on whether someone needing Section 117 aftercare and wanting to go into a more expensive home can meet the difference between those costs and the costs that a council would incur for a home that could equally well meet assessed needs.
The Council initially said that only a third party could meet the additional costs of a home chosen by the family for their mother. It then reviewed that decision and concluded that it would be reasonable for the mother to meet the difference in costs from her own resources.
A home in the Council’s area had vacancies, and the Council said that this home could meet the mother’s needs. The Council therefore refused to pay any more than the amount of that home’s fees. Her care plan included frequent contact with family members. The home that the Council said could meet her needs was in a rural location and difficult for family members to reach.
The Council now accepts that the home chosen by the family was appropriate, and it will meet the full costs.
The Ombudsman found that the Council:
|
|
had not properly considered whether the home it had identified would meet the mother’s assessed needs, nor taken into account the impact on family contact; and |
|
|
had delayed reviewing its initial decision about third party ‘top-up’ payments after representations from the daughter, her MP and her solicitors. |
If the Council had properly considered Mrs Trent’s assessed needs and reviewed its decision about ‘top-up’ payments sooner, unnecessary distress to Mrs Medway would have been avoided.
The Ombudsman found maladministration causing injustice and recommended the Council to pay Mrs Medway £500.
24 July 2007
Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council (05/C/11921)
Maladministration causing injustice
Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council failed in its legal duty to meet the needs of a disabled young woman. The Ombudsman recommended that the Council pay the young woman’s parents £1,000 per week for each week they had to care for her since August 2005, excluding weeks they have received respite care, plus £3,000 for distress, anxiety, and time and trouble taken in pursuing their complaint.
‘Mr and Mrs Kaye’ complained that the Council failed to meet the needs of their adult disabled daughter, ‘Daisy (not their real names).
Daisy had been living at a centre partly funded by the Learning and Skills Council with the aim that this would provide a transition to her permanent adult placement. This transition placement finished in July 2005. The Council offered one permanent placement at an adult centre, which the family rejected. The Council did not reply to Mr and Mrs Kaye’s concerns about this centre, nor did it address their reasons for rejecting the centre. As no further offer was made, Mr and Mrs Kaye felt they had no choice but to care for their daughter in the family home. She remains there. Since September 2005 the Council has proposed a number of centres, none of which have been able to care for Daisy.
The Ombudsman found maladministration as the Council failed to meet Daisy’s needs and:
|
|
failed to use the transition period appropriately to find a permanent placement for Daisy - no serious attempt was made to find a placement until the end of the transition placement; |
|
|
has not provided any evidence for its assertion that a centre could meet her needs nor provided any sort of transition plan for her move to it; |
|
|
carried out a flawed needs assessment before she left her transition placement and failed to carry out a proper, thorough, agreed, up-to-date needs assessment for Daisy since July 2005; and |
|
|
delayed considering and offering any support and help to the family whilst they struggled to care for Daisy at home - when provided, the ‘help’ was at best sporadic. |
The Council believed that it could have insisted on the one placement it offered in August 2005, but did not do so because it wanted to forge a good working relationship with the family. The family feel they have been blamed for the lack of long term provision. The Ombudsman’s view is that Daisy’s needs have not been met and that should have been the most important aim for the Council.
The Ombudsman proposed that, as a remedy for the injustice, the Council:
|
|
pays Mr and Mrs Kaye £1,000 per week for every week they have had to care for Daisy since August 2005, but not including any weeks she has received respite care; |
|
|
pays them £3,000 for their distress, anxiety, and time and trouble in pursuing the complaint with the Council; |
|
|
ensures that an independent, impartial, credible and comprehensive assessment is made of Daisy’s needs and of Mr and Mrs Kaye’s; |
|
|
produces a plan with a clear timescale for the action that it will take to identify and secure a long term placement for Daisy capable of meeting her assessed needs; and |
|
|
reports to the Ombudsman six monthly on the progress it has made. |
26 July 2007
Poole Borough Council (06/B/7542)
Maladministration causing injustice
Poole Borough Council did not deal properly with the change in circumstances of a woman who was receiving mental health aftercare. The Ombudsman found that, when the woman was moved to a new nursing home out of the Council’s area so that she could be nearer her son, it did not conduct a proper assessment of her mental health to establish whether she still needed aftercare. As a result, her son paid over £33,000 in nursing home fees until her death.
The late Mrs Arnold had a history of mental illness and had been detained in hospital under section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983 on several occasions. She was discharged on 11 January 2000 with a care package provided under section 117 of the Act. In November 2000, her husband, Mr F Arnold, who was his wife’s main carer, had a stroke and so was incapable of caring for his wife or himself. The Council placed Mrs Arnold in a nursing home and funded her care there.
In December 2000, the couple’s son, Mr B Arnold, asked the Council to move both his parents to a home nearer his, in a different part of the country. The Council said that, as Mrs Arnold received section 117 aftercare, it would need to get legal advice. It decided that Mrs Arnold could move, but did not mention the effect that her discharge from the home would have on payment for her aftercare. Mr F Arnold died shortly after the move, and Mrs Arnold lived at the new nursing home until her death in April 2002; her son paid the fees.
In March 2003, Mr B Arnold enquired about the way the section 117 aftercare order had been discharged. The Council decided that this was done correctly, although it could not provide evidence to substantiate its view.
The Ombudsman found that the Council failed to carry out a proper assessment of Mrs Arnold’s mental health needs to establish if section 117 aftercare was no longer required. It also failed to hold a multi-disciplinary meeting with the relevant professionals, the patient and her carer or nearest relative to review the care plan. As a result of these failures, Mr B Arnold had to bear the full cost of care for his mother until she died in April 2002.
The Ombudsman finds maladministration causing injustice and recommends that the Council compensates Mr B Arnold for the cost of his mother’s nursing home fees between 17 December 2000 and 17 April 2002 (£33,455.58), plus interest at the relevant county court rate.
5 September 2007
London Borough of Havering (06/A/10428)
Maladministration causing injustice
Failures by Havering Council meant that an elderly, disabled woman had to live in completely unsuitable accommodation for at least five years longer than necessary. The Ombudsman said that the Council failed to consider the woman’s housing needs and her human rights, and recommended it to pay £10,000 compensation.
Sadly, the complainant died before the issue of the Ombudsman’s report, so the compensation should be paid to her daughter.
‘Mrs Oak’ (not her real name) was 86 years old, partially sighted, deaf, and suffered from bronchial asthma and arthritis in all major joints. She lived with her daughter and grand-daughter in a second-floor three-bedroom maisonette, which was reached from street level by three sets of 14 steps. There was no lift. She could not manage the stairs to reach the property or those within the maisonette to her bedroom and the only bathroom without assistance.
Her daughter, the tenant, applied for a transfer for the family to a property with level access and asked the Council to award her additional priority due to Mrs Oak’s medical problems. Mrs Oak complained that the Council took too long to deal properly with the housing transfer application and, as a result, she had to live in completely unsuitable accommodation.
In January 2003, a Council officer visited Mrs Oak to assess her housing needs, and reported that she was “practically a prisoner in the home”. The Ombudsman added: “That tragic, deplorable and wholly preventable circumstance did not improve in the intervening years.”
The Ombudsman found that the Council had delayed in dealing properly with the transfer application and that Mrs Oak had had to live in unsuitable accommodation for at least five years longer than she should have. Sadly, between the issuing of the draft and this final report, Mrs Oak died.
The Ombudsman also concluded that the Council neglected to consider Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998, which says that everyone has the right to respect for his/her private and family life.
The Ombudsman found maladministration causing injustice. The Council’s recent offer of suitable accommodation addressed the family’s housing needs, but in addition, the Ombudsman recommended that the Council:
|
|
pays compensation of £10,000 to Mrs Oak’s daughter; and |
|
|
reviews all rehousing applications over the last five years to see whether others have been affected in a similar way, and apply appropriate compensation to anyone so affected. |
31 October 2007
Leeds City Council (05/C/13157)
Maladministration causing injustice
Leeds City Council’s faults meant that a seriously ill and profoundly disabled woman was confined to bed in one room of her house for two years longer than necessary. The Ombudsman criticised the Council’s failure recognise its legal duties to the woman and its handling of her disabled facilities grant (DFG) application, and recommended it to pay £6,605 compensation and review its administrative procedures. The Council accepted all the Ombudsman’s recommendations.
A man (called ‘Mr E’ in the report) complained about the Council’s provision of assistance to his wife, who is profoundly disabled, in particular about its handling of their DFG application. The Ombudsman criticised the Council’s failure to recognise its duties under Section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act and its failure to have any direct social work contact with the family for over 15 months.
On the handling of the DFG, the Ombudsman found fault in that the Council:
|
|
delayed in completing a financial assessment; |
|
|
failed to review the Grant Section’s stance that a DFG could not be used to provide or retain a family room when legislation says that a DFG can be used for ‘…facilitating access by the disabled occupant to a room used or usable as the principal family room…’; and |
|
|
failed to resolve the conflict between what the Grants Section would fund and what the Community Occupational Therapist and the complainant felt was necessary to meet his wife’s needs. |
As a result, for two years longer than necessary Mrs E was:
|
|
confined to bed in the front living room of her home; |
|
|
unable to use a special wheelchair provided by the NHS that would have relieved her pain and discomfort; |
|
|
unable to use a toilet, bath or shower, having to be ‘strip-washed’ on her bed by her carers, adding to her pain and discomfort; and |
|
|
unable to sit outside or with her family. |
To remedy the injustice, the Council agreed to:
|
|
pay £6,605 to the complainant; |
|
|
establish a mechanism for resolving disputes about what adaptations are required to meet a disabled person’s needs; |
|
|
ensure that all relevant officers are aware, and are periodically reminded of, the Council’s duty under section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Person’s Act; and |
|
|
produce a report about the lessons to be learnt from the complainant’s experience and the changes it will make to its practice and procedures. |
In March 2007 a suitable property was identified for Mr and Mrs E and the Council agreed to provide a prefabricated ‘pod’ extension with bedroom, toilet and bathroom. The works were due to be completed soon. Meanwhile the Council used DFG funding to widen the doors and other work in the present home allowing wheelchair access. The Council also set up an appeal panel to resolve disputes about adaptations, and invited Mr E to take part in meetings about improving services.
The Ombudsman found no fault by the Council in handling Mr and Mrs E’s rehousing applications, but commented that, “It is some measure of the extreme pressure on social housing, especially properties adapted to be wheelchair accessible, that all the higher priority cases were in even more difficult situations than the complainant and his wife and that allocations had been properly made to applicants with higher priority.”
20 November 2007
Bath & North East Somerset Council (06/B/16774)
Maladministration causing injustice
Bath and North East Somerset Council decided that a woman who had been detained in hospital for her mental health no longer needed aftercare - but its criteria for making that decision were “seriously flawed”. The Ombudsman said “the practical effect of the Council’s criteria is to remove long term nursing or residential home accommodation from the definition of aftercare services”, and this would allow the Council to “…avoid its public responsibilities under section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983.”
‘Mrs Fletcher’ (not her real name) was discharged from hospital following a period of detention under Section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983. Initially the Council funded her aftercare in a residential care home under Section 117 of the Act. But, following a review of her case, the Council determined that Mrs Fletcher no longer needed aftercare and so could be discharged from Section 117.
The Ombudsman found that the discharge criteria applied by the Council were seriously flawed and its decision about Mrs Fletcher’s continuing need for aftercare was, therefore, unsafe.
The Ombudsman found maladministration causing injustice and the Council agreed to:
|
|
review its Section 117 discharge criteria with the assistance of external legal advice and then reassess Mrs Fletcher’s need for continuing aftercare services; |
|
|
pay Mrs Fletcher’s residential care costs until such time as a new review properly determines whether she needs aftercare services under Section 117; and |
|
|
pay Mrs Fletcher’s family compensation of £250. |
12 December 2007
Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council (05/C/11921)
Further report: first report found maladministration causing injustice
Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council did not comply with the Ombudsman’s recommendation to pay appropriate compensation for its failure to meet the needs of a young disabled woman. The Council accepted there had been shortcomings and offered to pay £10,000 compensation, but the Ombudsman considered this was insufficient. She said “I am disappointed by the Council’s response and its unwillingness to recognise that the payment I recommended … reflected the payments that it should have made for [the young woman’s] care over the period.”
The Ombudsman recommended a payment to the young woman’s parents of £1,000 for each week they have had to care for her since August 2005, excluding weeks they have received respite care, plus £3,000 for distress, anxiety, and the time and trouble they have taken in pursuing their complaint. The Council calculated this would cost it £100,000.
In these circumstances, the Ombudsman published a further (second) report in which she repeated her recommendations, and hoped that the Council would now implement them in full.
In July 2007, the Ombudsman upheld the complaint made by ‘Mr and Mrs Kaye’ (not their real names) that the Council had failed to meet the needs of their adult disabled daughter. In particular it:
|
|
failed to use the transition period appropriately to find a permanent placement; |
|
|
provided no evidence for its assertion that a centre could meet her needs nor provided any sort of transition plan for her move to it; |
|
|
carried out a flawed needs assessment before she left her transition placement and failed to carry out an up-to-date needs assessment since July 2005; and |
|
|
delayed considering and offering support and help to the couple while they struggled to care for their daughter at home. |
The Council accepted two of the Ombudsman’s other recommendations: to undertake an independent professional review of current and future plans to ensure that they met Miss Kaye’s needs, and to produce a clear plan for her to move to a long term placement capable of meeting her assessed needs.
However, it did not agree to a recommendation that it should report to Ombudsman at six monthly intervals on the progress it has made. The Ombudsman said this recommendation was included to ensure that the Kaye family did not suffer from any further unwarranted delays.
3 January 2008
Birmingham City Council (05/C/18474) NEW
Maladministration causing injustice
Birmingham City Council failed utterly in its duty towards ‘Miss D’, a deaf young woman with learning disabilities who was in its care. The Ombudsman said that the management and supervision of Miss D’s care by Birmingham Adult Learning Disability Service was “woefully inadequate”.
Among the many examples of failure were its long delay in allocating a social worker, who was instructed to do reviews by telephone even though Miss D was deaf and had learning disabilities, and who only saw Miss D once and then without a signer to enable her to communicate.
Miss D moved out of the Birmingham area with her childhood foster family, but she remained in Birmingham City Council’s care. When she was a teenager her first foster mother became unable to look after her and she was placed in her second foster home through a private fostering agency. When Miss D was 18 Birmingham’s Adult Learning Disability Service took over responsibility for her. Miss D remained with the second foster family and Birmingham continued to pay fees to them, even though they failed for eight years to register as a small home providing board and personal care to vulnerable adults.
Miss D’s foster sister from her first foster family (called ‘Mrs B’ in the report) had become increasingly concerned about Miss D’s welfare. Among her concerns were that Miss D was:
|
|
obstructed from contact with her first foster family; |
|
|
not allowed to use sign language – her preferred means of communication; |
|
|
treated like a child (for example being sent to bed at 7pm); |
|
|
prevented from developing a relationship she desired with a young man at her work placement, and encouraged to form an inappropriate relationship with an older man acquainted with the family; and |
|
|
punished for private sexual expression and prescribed drugs to reduce her libido that made her overweight and sluggish. |
Mrs B was so disturbed by the situation and Birmingham’s lack of response to her concerns that she involved MENCAP and the local Social Services. After eliciting no sensible response to the situation from Birmingham, at the end of 2004 the local Social Services initiated an Adult Protection Investigation. This led to Miss D moving to a new placement.
Mrs B made formal complaints to Birmingham on behalf of Miss D. An Independent Investigating Officer and a Review Panel upheld almost all the complaints. The Panel said it was “…appalled at the poor practices and indifference which had permitted [Miss D] to be placed and remain in a placement that was questionable from the beginning” and “The evidence… is that Birmingham failed dismally to exercise adequate care and responsibility for more than 10 years…”
The Council delayed for six months before writing to Mrs B with its response to the Review Panel’s findings. The response was inadequate and gave Mrs B every justification for believing that the Council did not take the issues seriously.
Miss D settled in her new placement where she could communicate by signing and has regular contact with Mrs B. Only the care and vigilance of Mrs B has achieved this after more than five years of vigorous campaigning on Miss D’s behalf. She was ignored by Birmingham Social Services, has had good cause to doubt its ability to fulfil its obligations, and has felt, with justification, that she has been ‘fobbed-off’ with platitudes.
The Ombudsman found maladministration causing injustice in that the Council:
|
|
failed for eight years, after Miss D became an adult, to assess and review her needs and only acted when forced to do so by an Adult Protection investigation; |
|
|
placed Miss D with people who were only approved as foster carers for children and who resisted registering as a small home; |
|
|
failed to respond to concerns expressed by Mrs B and professionals that Miss D’s placement was inappropriate and damaging; |
|
|
delayed in providing funding for an advocate and alternative placement for Miss D; |
|
|
delayed in responding to the Review Panel findings, and disregarded them; and |
|
|
failed to review Miss D’s new placement. |
The Adult Learning Disability Service did not function as it should have done and was in crisis with two thirds of its posts vacant. The Ombudsman said “In these circumstances there is little point in criticising the staff and management.”
She said “Birmingham must ask itself how such a crisis could develop and endure for so long and how the Council, as a corporate body and a Social Services authority, could fail so seriously to ensure adequate resourcing and performance of its services to highly vulnerable adults.”
The Ombudsman recommended that the Council:
|
|
pays Miss D £5,000 compensation (to be used for social outings and holidays); |
|
|
pays Mrs B £1,250 and donates a further £1,250 to MENCAP to recognise her time and trouble in pursuing the complaint; and |
|
|
commissions and publicly reports the findings of an independent audit of a representative sample of adults with learning disabilities to establish whether proper arrangements for their care are now in place. |
4 March 2008
Buckinghamshire County Council (03/A/4618) NEW
Maladministration causing injustice
JOINT REPORT with the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman on complaints against Oxfordshire & Buckinghamshire Mental Health Partnership Trust (ref HS-2608)
The two Ombudsmen found that the level of care provided by Buckinghamshire County Council and Oxfordshire & Buckinghamshire Mental Health Partnership Trust for a man with severe learning disabilities was unacceptable. They said that the care needs of ‘Frank’ (not his real name) were never properly assessed. In their joint report they also identified a number of significant failings in the level of care he received and in complaint handling.
Frank’s parents complained to the Local Government Ombudsman and the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman about the care their son received while he was living for two years in a residential care home run jointly by the County Council and the Health Trust. Frank needed one-to-one attention for about 95 per cent of his waking time.
The Ombudsmen’s report said Frank and his parents had a right to expect that the Care Home would provide him with appropriate care in an environment conducive to his development, but sadly that did not happen. The Ombudsmen found that there had been fault by both the Council and the Health Trust that caused adverse effects for Frank and his family including acute anxiety and distress and some financial loss. The Ombudsmen recommended that the Council and the Health Trust pay £32,000 compensation.
This was the first time that the Local Government Ombudsman and Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman had collaborated on an investigation in this way. Although they had separate jurisdictions over different parts of the complaints, they felt collaboration was in the best interest of Frank and his parents as many aspects of the health and social care complaints were inextricably linked.
The Ombudsmen reported jointly using powers under the new Regulatory Reform (Collaboration etc. between Ombudsmen) Order 2007, which has enabled them to work together more effectively in investigating and reporting on complaints which cross their jurisdictions.
Ann Abraham, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, said: “Having the powers to issue a joint report has been invaluable, and the Local Government Ombudsman and I have therefore been able to consider maladministration and the resulting injustice in a joined up manner.
“This demonstrates the significant value of the Order and in turn has allowed us to think about recommending a remedy to Frank and his parents which addresses, in the round, the injustices they have experienced.”
Tony Redmond, Local Government Ombudsman, said: “Collaborating with the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman in this way as a result of the Order is an important step forward. One of the outcomes of this case has been identifying the need for robust and transparent governance arrangements to be in place, in order to provide clear accountability for the actions of authorities. A complainant can then be more readily signposted to the body that can better deal with a complaint.”
‘Injustice in residential care: a joint report by the Local Government Ombudsman and the Health Service Ombudsman for England’ was laid before Parliament on 26 March 2008.
17 March 2008
Medway Council (06/B/12248) & Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (06/B/12247) NEW
Maladministration causing injustice (Medway) No maladministration (Wigan)
A solicitor complained that both Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council and Medway Council, for different reasons, refused to fund mental health aftercare for his client following his discharge from hospital. The Ombudsman found that, as the man was ordinarily resident in Medway at the time of his compulsory admission to hospital, Medway Council was responsible and should now reimburse its share of the aftercare costs. He made no criticism of Wigan Council.
The Ombudsman was also critical of Medway Council’s lack of involvement in the arrangements for the man’s discharge from hospital, and commented, “In my view, the Council’s contribution to the discharge process was both limited and ill-informed.”
‘Mr Conrad’ (not his real name) was detained in hospital under Section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983. When he was discharged in 2000 he required aftercare under Section 117 of the Act. Because he was discharged to a specialist care facility outside its area, Medway Council refused to meet the cost of Mr Conrad’s aftercare. Wigan Council, in whose area Mr Conrad lived following his discharge, also declined to pay for his aftercare on grounds that he had previously lived in Medway and because it was not party to his placement. As a result, Mr Conrad had to fund his own aftercare for a prolonged period and incurred legal costs in pursuit of his complaints against both Councils.
The Ombudsman considered that Mr Conrad was ‘ordinarily resident’ in Medway at the time of his compulsory admission and so found that Medway Council rather than Wigan Council was the authority responsible for funding his aftercare.
The Ombudsman found maladministration by Medway Council causing injustice to Mr Conrad. He found no maladministration by Wigan Council. He recommended that Medway Council should:
|
|
determine and reimburse its share of the cost of Mr Conrad’s aftercare to date with interest at the County Court rate, and discuss reimbursement of the remainder with the relevant health authority; |
|
|
undertake the future funding of Mr Conrad’s aftercare in conjunction with the relevant Health Authority for as long as it remains necessary; and |
|
|
make a contribution of £1,000 to Mr Conrad’s legal costs. |
29 April 2008
Children and family services
Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (06/C/00693)
Maladministration Causing Injustice
Wirral Council failed to make even basic checks before placing two young children with a man and his adult daughter for fostering. The Ombudsman also found that the Council failed to provide financial or other support, or make social work visits to the children for several weeks after the placement began.
The Council agreed to pay £10,350 compensation (which was the fostering allowance for the period, plus £250 for time and trouble in making the complaints) to the complainant.
‘Mr Carlisle’ (not his real name) complained about a number of issues connected with the placement of two young children with him and his adult daughter for fostering. The children were those of Mr Carlisle’s ex-partner, and were half-siblings to his adult daughter, but no relation to him. The Council placed the children after reports from the children’s father (who was separated from their mother) and others that the children were neglected.
The Ombudsman found that the Council:
|
|
made no checks before it placed the children with Mr Carlisle and his adult daughter; |
|
|
did not visit the children for several weeks after the placement began; |
|
|
gave no financial or other support to Mr Carlisle; and |
|
|
delayed in arranging a Review Panel when Mr Carlisle’s complaints about these issues were considered through the Council’s statutory social services complaints procedure. |
The Ombudsman commented: “The Council placed two vulnerable young children in the care of Mr Carlisle and his daughter without even the most basic checks on them, their home and their ability to look after young children. Fortunately Mr Carlisle and his daughter have proved to be appropriate carers who have apparently done an excellent job in looking after the children who have come to no harm. This is no thanks to the Council.”
The Ombudsman found maladministration causing injustice and the Council agreed to pay Mr Carlisle and his daughter £10,350. She also proposed that the Council should review its practices and procedures to ensure that there will be no repetition of children being placed with carers without proper checks being made, conduct an audit of other emergency placements, and make quarterly reports to the appropriate Council committee on complaints received under the statutory procedure.
3 December 2007
Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (06/B/9795)
Maladministration causing injustice
Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council acted unfairly over additional payments to different categories of foster carers. The Ombudsman said that the Council “unreasonably discriminated” in that it did not make the same additional payments to foster carers who were related to the children they fostered as it did to other foster carers. The Council accepted the Ombudsman’s recommendations for resolving the complaint, and agreed to pay £2,872.39 to the complainant and review its kinship care policy.
‘Mr Carter’ (not his real name) and his wife looked after a relative’s child between May 2005 and November 2006. This made them ‘kinship carers’ (relatives or friends who care for another family’s children) under the Council’s policy.
Kinship carers may have children placed with them by the Council for longer term care before the necessary checks are carried out and they are approved as foster carers. Foster carers are entitled to weekly payments for each child fostered and can claim additional payments for birthdays, Christmas etc. The Council makes weekly payments to kinship carers at the same rate as other foster carers, but it did not make the additional payments to kinship carers. The Council then changed its policy to make these payments claimable from 1 April 2007.
The Council refused to make back payment of the additional payments to Mr Carter.
The Ombudsman found that the Council was at fault in that it unreasonably discriminated between categories of foster carer in the matter of additional payments. The Council was also at fault in not making back payments of the difference between the support payment made to Mr Carter and the payments it made to foster carers, once it had placed the child with Mr and Mrs Carter and started the process for assessing them as kinship carers.
The Ombudsman found maladministration causing injustice and, in accordance with his recommendations, the Council paid Mr Carter £2,872.39 and reviewed its kinship care policy.
24 January 2008
Wiltshire County Council (06/B/6454) NEW
Maladministration causing injustice
Wiltshire County Council mishandled the social care needs of a family, and failed to provide properly for one of their daughters’ special educational needs. The Ombudsman said “…education and social care professionals did not work together effectively with one another and with the health care professionals involved, to ensure that not only [the girl]’s needs, but those of her parents and siblings were met.” He added “The failures here had significant consequences for the health, happiness and wellbeing of the whole family, as well as for [the girl]’s development at an important stage of her life.”
He recommended the Council to pay £10,000 compensation and review its arrangements to avoid any recurrence of these problems.
‘Mr and Mrs Taverner’ (not their real names) have three children. ‘Laura’ is severely autistic with associated communication difficulties and has a statement of special educational needs. At an annual review in June 2005, the professionals present unanimously recommended that she should attend a residential school from the point of transfer to secondary education, due in September 2006, as her needs could not be met locally. At the time, her parents were appealing to the Special Educational Needs Tribunal for that placement.
In November 2005 Laura’s social care needs and those of her family were assessed and a recommendation made that Laura’s needs should be met outside the home, in a setting where she would receive 24-hour supervision and care, with an educational programme integrated into her life both at school and outside. Four months later, when the parents enquired why this was not in place, the Council said that the recommendation should have been removed from the draft report before it was issued, but had not been. The Council considered that a support package already in place met Laura’s needs; but did not explain how the need for a 24-hour curriculum could be met without a residential school placement. No clear written policy was in place to support this view. A review of the core assessment was carried out which, while identifying unmet needs for respite care, made no additional provision above what was already in place.
Meanwhile Laura, who had transferred to a local secondary day school in September 2006, did not settle and from January 2007 refused to attend school. She remained at home until September 2007, at which point she obtained a place at a residential special school. In the meantime, the Council offered little further support and in particular, no offer of further respite care was made until May 2007. During this period Laura’s health and wellbeing, as well as that of her parents and siblings, suffered significant adverse effects.
The Ombudsman considered that the Council’s removal of a recommendation from a core assessment without full and proper consideration of the impact of that amendment, and its failure to ensure that the needs of Laura and her family were adequately met over a period of many months, together with the lack of a clear written policy that the parents could challenge through use of the statutory complaints procedure, was maladministration. But for the maladministration, the needs of Laura and her family would have been met either through a residential school placement or by some alternative form of provision.
The Ombudsman found maladministration causing injustice and recommended that the Council should:
|
|
apologise to Mr and Mrs Taverner; |
|
|
pay them £10,000; and |
|
|
review its administrative arrangements to prevent a recurrence of the maladministration. |
The Ombudsman was pleased to report that Laura was now happily settled at a residential school.
17 April 2008