Social workers and police armed with a battering ram mounted an "invasion" to take an 86-year-old woman away from her family, her daughter has said.Was she mistreating her, then?
Well, no. But it didn’t look to her as if the care home she was in was living up to its name:
Rosalind Figg had initially withdrawn her frail mother from a care home in the city because she had apparently asked to return home, where her daughter could look after her.They threw a blanket over her head…?
But Mrs Figg was returned to the Butts Croft House home on Monday when four police officers, two social workers and a doctor came to the house on Keresley Close with a battering ram and a warrant to take her away. They threw a blanket over her head but Mrs Figg threw it off, her daughter said.
Why? They were putting her in an ambulance, not into the stalls for the 3.20 at Chepstow!
Ms Figg added she had given up the running of a local pottery shop to care for her mother who suffers from dementia and had experience as a carer.And, according to the ‘Mail’, she had done everything asked of her, and more:
Divorced mother-of-four Miss Figg and her partner Christopher Roberts, 41, created the downstairs bedroom, installed wheelchair ramps and had a special bed delivered with sensors in the mattress so an alarm would wake them if the old lady got up in the night.No details are given as to why not, but I can’t see how a care home could possibly provide this level of personal care.
But a council occupational health specialist ruled the three-bedroom semi-detached home was still not suitable for Mrs Figg.
However, it seems that Coventry City Council were determined to hang on to Mrs Figg at all costs:
A spokesman for Coventry City Council said: "Staff from a number of agencies are involved in safeguarding Mrs Figg, including using statutory powers to protect her against further moves and to provide a mental health assessment after she was removed from a residential care home by her daughter against advice from the Older People's Community Mental Health Team, which includes representatives from health agencies and Social Care."Yeah, see, the thing about ‘advice’? You don’t have to take it! Unless, it seems, you are under the ‘care’ of Coventry City Council social services.
But why would they go to such lengths, given the recession and the resource-hungry task of caring for dementia patients (and that’s not including the potential litigation nightmare if it turns out your employees might be the sort that like to burn elderly people alive), to wrest this lady from the family that wanted to care for her, and had gone to considerable lengths to do so, at the cost to their own lives?
Here’s a possible clue:
Yesterday she was back in her room at £2,000-a-month Butts Croft House in Corley, Warwickshire.They always say ‘follow the money’, don’t they..?
And in a telling little footnote:
Butts Croft House is a 28-bed home which specialises in dementia care. It has not been rated by the Care Quality Commission since changing ownership in October. It was inspected for the first time under the new regime last month.So, they can’t really be sure if it is officially the most appropriate place for Mrs Figg, but they are damn sure that her daughter’s house isn’t?
A spokesman for the CQC said the report was still being finalised and was not due to be published until late May.
Update: LegIron has this one too.
Disgraceful. We should be doing more to encourage families to look after their elderly relatives - not forcibly removing them from their care. It just goes to highlight the mentality of the SS today.
On the face of it, a disgraceful example of an overly intrusive State and a misuse of power.
On the other hand, my cynical mind can envisage a situation where the social workers would be absolutely right to intervene in circumstances such as these and where they would be unable to make their true reasons public.
In any case, does not a major resonsibility lie with the Magistrates? Someone had to swear out a complaint that this lady was subject to "ill-treatment and neglect". I am no lawyer, but I assume no magistrate would rubber-stamp such an application without questioning the complainant thoroughly to ensure that there were sound grounds for the issue of the warrant?
I found this report on Nanny Knows Best, and came straight over to see that you had it. My comment there:
As Anticant says, it beggars belief.
Only under the current government could this happen.
By the time the legalities are sorted out, the old lady will likely be dead. Still, sue the buggers anyway: this is kidnap, pure and simple, and the police should have had the stones to refuse all involvement.
Hang them. Hang them all, and hang them high.
"We should be doing more to encourage families to look after their elderly relatives..."
This family certainly seems to have done their bit, which makes the council actions somewhat...odd.
"...my cynical mind can envisage a situation where the social workers would be absolutely right to intervene in circumstances such as these and where they would be unable to make their true reasons public..."
Mine too, but there are ways and means of ensuring that the 'true reasons' are reflected in media comment, if that's the case.
"...I assume no magistrate would rubber-stamp such an application without questioning the complainant thoroughly.."Once upon a time, I'd have probably thought the same!
"Only under the current government could this happen."
I understand why people say this, but I fear it's merely wishful thinking.
These decisions are local ones, taken at local level. The same people will be in place, with the same drivers, when Cameron ascends to the throne. It's hard to see how anything he does can change this...
For a nursing home to make money they need “self funders” to make up for those the local authority fund.
If Mrs Figg is as ill as the SS are making out then her care should be paid for by the NHS under "continuing care" criteria. not by Mrs Figg and certainly not the family.
"I assume no magistrate would rubber-stamp such an application without questioning the complainant thoroughly"
You only have to look at the Family Courts to see that magistrates accept the testimony of 'experts' almost without question. They are, after all, 'experts'.
Post a Comment