In the Clients Best Interest?

During the course of their career, most probation officers will pick up a rudimentary knowledge of the Mental Health Act and in particular the provisions for assessment, compulsory treatment and detention. Many of our clients have mental health problems and generally speaking we are aware of the processes involved under the terms of the Act.

I have written previously about the distinctions to be drawn between mental health and learning disability. In relation to the latter, fairly recently I became involved in a case being supervised by a colleague and in particular the enormous amount of effort that had to be expended in trying to get the Local Authority to make an assessment and agree to assume responsibility for the clients suitable care and accommodation. In the process, what puzzled both of us was the eventual realisation of the clients restriction of liberty and by exactly what mechanism?

All the questions directed at the social worker seemed only to confuse the situation further. My colleague and I were both vaguely aware of the Mental Capacity Act but it wasn't until I became aware of this case on the Law and Lawyers Blog that I fully realised what an Orwellian nightmare seems to have been created:- 

"Stephen Neary is aged 20.  He is autistic.  He lived with his father (Michael) until his father had a serious bout of influenza and was temporarily unable to care for him.  Michael arranged for Stephen to be cared for at a local authority run respite centre for just 3 days.  Stephen had been there before.  The respite centre decided to transfer Stephen to a "Positive Behaviour Unit" alleging that he had committed assaults whilst at the respite centre.  The Unit decided to deprive Stephen of his liberty so that he could be "assessed."  He has been held for almost a year and it is argued that he is not suitable to return home.  It now appears that the local authority has applied to the Court of Protection for "Welfare Deputyship."

There is a disturbing full account of this case on the Anna Racoon blog that would reward reading in order to fully appreciate the frighteningly Kafkaesque world that this Act has created, pretty much unnoticed by the public and many professionals alike. What is becoming apparent is just how complex and non-transparent the whole thing has become and I for one remain very uneasy about the process for appeal, or even review of decisions. It's very uncomfortable indeed to realise that what we felt was in our clients best interest in ensuring that he avoided a custodial sentence, has clearly resulted in the deprivation of his liberty, but via a completely different route. A most unintended and worrying outcome.