I do sometimes get asked if i make things up I write on here, and sometimes I wonder myself.
Yesterday the student went off like a missile, a ballistic missile, I had a bit of an eventful morning out doing a few chores and finding that the car was not in fact running right. I got to spend 45 minutes in the rain refitting the little valve under the bonnet a right fiddly little job that, if I dropped one of the screws would have meant garages and call outs and things like that.
Arriving in the house the tell tale signs were all there, she had retired to our utility room with the walk about phone and her voice had that little edge in it. I picked up the gunfire, the explosions and the general someone is getting some from the student situation.
When she came off the phone, I think it was my turn, not to cop for it but to express a little unhappiness.
It turns out that as far as little D going is concerned, we are the bad guys.
The student had told him to pack his stuff and leave.
I had disobeyed a direct instruction to prevent him from getting the train.
The student had taken him to the station then refused his request for a goodbye hug.
We are a pretty heartless bunch I am sure you agree.
Now lets put some meat on the bones.
Yes the student had told him to pack his stuff. She told him that if he was hell bent on leaving it was unreasonable of him to leave his room like a tip, so he could clean that up Unreasonable also to expect her to pack his bags and possessions for him, that was his to do as part of his decision to move on.
It is indeed true that I did not stop him getting on the train. It is not true that I was told to do so. Had anyone told me such a thing I would have pointed out that preventing him leaving here either in a car or a taxi would have been a breach of article 5 of the Human Rights Act, as such I would have pointed out it was both an illegal instruction and the SW was committing a deregistration level breach of the code of practice for social care.
And yes the student had refused to hug him when he left. She said: "No I am not going to hug you, you are making the biggest mistake you will ever make, I am far too upset and worried for you to hug you"
With the train in the station she was still trying to persuade him not to do it.
Blimey though this one is going to run and run.
Lets review:
At 16 it was a legal requirement he had a full assessment of his needs - not done.Leaving Care Act
At 16 he must have a "personal adviser" - not done Leaving Care Act.
Of course with no needs assessment, his Pathway Plan is going to be a bit of a joke. There is of course case law on that one.
Making sure all this happens is the role of the Independent Reviewing Officer, note the first word there, more case law around that. The IRO has been smack on the ball playing hell about him not having been to the dentist for 6 months, on the matter of things that are legal requirements there has been a deafening silence.
This is of course the very edited highlights, in actuality it's a situation where there is an audit trail from us dating back several years, a litany of failure to engage and put his needs first.
I wondered a while back if he really had the mental capacity to make the decision he has just made under the provisions of the Mental Capacity Act. Something which should have triggered an assessment but which didn't.
Then again it also seems to me that he has had a very inferior service due mainly to the difficulties he presents due to his cognitive impairments. He has had an inferior service because he has a learning disability ohhh now lets see Equality Act 2010 anyone.....
Thinking about it, I must be making this up, it could not possibly be true could it.....
R
Yesterday the student went off like a missile, a ballistic missile, I had a bit of an eventful morning out doing a few chores and finding that the car was not in fact running right. I got to spend 45 minutes in the rain refitting the little valve under the bonnet a right fiddly little job that, if I dropped one of the screws would have meant garages and call outs and things like that.
Arriving in the house the tell tale signs were all there, she had retired to our utility room with the walk about phone and her voice had that little edge in it. I picked up the gunfire, the explosions and the general someone is getting some from the student situation.
When she came off the phone, I think it was my turn, not to cop for it but to express a little unhappiness.
It turns out that as far as little D going is concerned, we are the bad guys.
The student had told him to pack his stuff and leave.
I had disobeyed a direct instruction to prevent him from getting the train.
The student had taken him to the station then refused his request for a goodbye hug.
We are a pretty heartless bunch I am sure you agree.
Now lets put some meat on the bones.
Yes the student had told him to pack his stuff. She told him that if he was hell bent on leaving it was unreasonable of him to leave his room like a tip, so he could clean that up Unreasonable also to expect her to pack his bags and possessions for him, that was his to do as part of his decision to move on.
It is indeed true that I did not stop him getting on the train. It is not true that I was told to do so. Had anyone told me such a thing I would have pointed out that preventing him leaving here either in a car or a taxi would have been a breach of article 5 of the Human Rights Act, as such I would have pointed out it was both an illegal instruction and the SW was committing a deregistration level breach of the code of practice for social care.
And yes the student had refused to hug him when he left. She said: "No I am not going to hug you, you are making the biggest mistake you will ever make, I am far too upset and worried for you to hug you"
With the train in the station she was still trying to persuade him not to do it.
Blimey though this one is going to run and run.
Lets review:
At 16 it was a legal requirement he had a full assessment of his needs - not done.Leaving Care Act
At 16 he must have a "personal adviser" - not done Leaving Care Act.
Of course with no needs assessment, his Pathway Plan is going to be a bit of a joke. There is of course case law on that one.
Making sure all this happens is the role of the Independent Reviewing Officer, note the first word there, more case law around that. The IRO has been smack on the ball playing hell about him not having been to the dentist for 6 months, on the matter of things that are legal requirements there has been a deafening silence.
This is of course the very edited highlights, in actuality it's a situation where there is an audit trail from us dating back several years, a litany of failure to engage and put his needs first.
I wondered a while back if he really had the mental capacity to make the decision he has just made under the provisions of the Mental Capacity Act. Something which should have triggered an assessment but which didn't.
Then again it also seems to me that he has had a very inferior service due mainly to the difficulties he presents due to his cognitive impairments. He has had an inferior service because he has a learning disability ohhh now lets see Equality Act 2010 anyone.....
Thinking about it, I must be making this up, it could not possibly be true could it.....
R
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment