‘Best Interests’: no choice, no oversight, no accountability, the sad story of MN.

finolamoss

hitler-quote lie

A residential placement, commissioned by the LA and/or local clinical commissioning group is invariably in an ‘incapacitated’ person’s ‘best interests’.

The Court of Protection is not given a choice it is forced to rubber stamp the executive’s decision.

It doesn’t need to be proved a placement is in a particular individual’s best interests.

The Court of Protection does not explore a placements previous outcomes nor insist on a trial period.

Thomas Rawnsley’s ‘best interests’ were served by living in the newly built Kingdom House, 80 miles from his family were he died at 20, with no evidence of how his provider intended to cope with his state created trauma , autism and Downs Syndrome .

The court his family nor Thomas were given any other alternatives.

And the Court of Protection will not interfere with a care provider’s provision as shown in N v ACCG and Others [ 2017] UKSC 22

http://www.familylaw.co.uk/system/froala_assets/documents/1566/N_v_ACCG_and_Others__2017__UKSC_22.pdf

Where a mother’s simple requests to…

View original post 1,094 more words

Advertisements

Leave a comment

No comments yet.

Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s