What is going on in this house?

Mum didn’t have a house to sell. And her income meant that she made a considerable contribution to her care package - LA care isn’t based on assets and savings alone. Having said that, the cost would have been considerably more to the tax payer had she needed residential care.

And yes, l acknowledged that we were lucky to be in a position to be available to help. Even the LA social care adviser admitted it was unusual because most families run a mile when they hear the word dementia. But l wouldn’t characterise the care provided by the LA as simply an addition. The services that were engaged were an integral part of her care as we are both in our later years and have health problems of our own. We couldn’t have managed without the support we had.

To move someone into a care home against their will is very difficult, and rightly so. As her LPA it was made clear to me that capacity is considered fluid and that all decisions l made for her should be at a suitable time to allow her as much input as possible - periods of lucidity were fairly frequent until the last year of her life and l had to take this into account. Clearly where there are safeguarding issues, then moving into care would be appropriate but IME with mum, her wishes were considered as far as possible.

Another inflammatory poster
edited to say I can see you are also doing it to others, so I wont take offence, feel free to report my posts if you feel they are argumentative

I don’t think the poster was insinuating that you had said anything like this, but some posters were leaning towards it. And the provision of care for younger people with difficult to manage conditions is a very different conversation to that of elderly care because the needs are very different.

Some MH conditions are inappropriate for more traditional care settings though. As l said upthread, many families across the country are struggling with violent and disruptive family members, much of the time without little or no support, simply because there aren’t enough of these types of facilities available. In these cases it’s placements within more traditional care settings which would be risky, if not impossible.

I think this has been highlighted recently with the two very high profile cases mentioned upthread. Rather than being the fault of the disabled people in question they were as a result of fundamental failures in care and risk assessment.

Oh I see. I inferred she did as you said:

It isn’t necessary to sell the home you are living in to access home care. My mother had 2.1 care when in the advanced stages of dementia and remained at home until the end with their help.

Whereas in fact in your mother’s case she didn’t have a home to sell.

It’s true you don’t have to sell if your capital is under the threshold and don’t require more than 4 x a day care. But that’s quite a low bar. Once you need more there’s no alternative to a care home - unless you have relatives kind enough to take you in.

Your mother is very lucky that you were prepared to look after her. My father, who has late stage dementia is currently living with us and it’s a lot. He’s very sweet though.

Have you checked local planning portal to see what planning permission was recent sought for the house ? The high fences would usually require planning permission.

I worked in a service like this. One man with learning disabilities and challenging behaviour. Had his own very secure bungalow. Two members of staff at home, three when out in the community. I was involved in an education project, I met him a few times to support a functional skills course. He loved new people and was interesting and funny. The staff kept warning me about him, and regularly felt the need to restrain him, but I only ever saw the charming side. Very weird life for him!

Please, people, don’t try to guilt-trip OP or call her nosy. As someone has pointed out here already, dangerous men do sometimes escape their carers and attack people. It’s reasonable to be aware and try to take precautions.

Did people ever want ‘care in the community’? It’s a nice-sounding expression, but I’ve usually heard it used sarcastically, in that the speaker believes people in need of care have been thrown out to fend for themselves. In the case of violent mentally ill people, this transfers the problem from the state to the rest of the population.

We had something similar near us. An elderly lady died and her detached house (fairly big) was renovated with high security fences and key codes etc. There is no signage but the local gossip says it is a home that looks after a very small number of disturbed children. There have been a few incidents in the community but these seem to have been resolved.

I don't know what the current feeling on the specific phrase 'care in the community' is (it's not really used in current professional parlance), but if you mean the general policy of de-institutionalising people with learning difficulties and neurodiversities, and supporting them to live in their own homes rather than in hospitals, yes, very many people wanted and continue to want that. Not least the people with these conditions themselves (I hope you'd agree their opinion counts for something) but also their relatives, carers, professionals, support groups and charities plus also many politicians and disinterested observers. Mencap amongst others continues to campaign on this very issue https://www.mencap.org.uk/get-involved/campaign-mencap/transforming-care-homes-not-hospitals

I do agree there are a lot of problems with the system as it stands and of course no-one thinks it's a great idea if people with complex needs are simply dumped into a community setting with inadequate support, most of the problems come down to funding ultimately, lack of skilled carers, lack of system join-up, low levels of research and innovation in the learning disability field, failure to understand how physical health needs impact on learning disabilities and vice versa etc, I'm not pretending it's a bed of roses out there or that hospital or care home/institutional care isn't sometimes necessary, but I do find it depressing that some people on this thread seem to be implying that the answer to the problems is a return to wholesale and indiscriminate institutionalisation, bearing in mind the OP has given no indication that the man the thread is about is in any way disruptive or a threat to the general public by living as he does...

The NHS trust is trying to bring some money in, so they have opened a brothel many miles away. The women are the working ‘girls’, the man is their pimp/brothel security

People very definitely wanted people not to be living in the kinds of institutions we had before care in the community, asylums, workhouses and almshouses etc. Appalling lack of stimulation, lack of care, isolated and ignored.

Yes society has moved further towards individualism but at the same time inclusion and part of that philosophy and ideology was agency, choice, people who struggle in society and community, living among society and community which was designed to give them greater empowerment and connection with others. Small state = lower oversight

I'll leave you to consider whether that has happened or not.

You weren’t clear on the amounts or exclusions, and many people look at these threads for information so I think it’s important to be accurate. And you gave the impression that care costs were based on savings alone. They’re not. Any and all personal income is assessed, including disability benefits in some areas. And if income is above the assessed minimum income guarantee, some or all of the care costs will be met by the person receiving care.

And not all local authorities will provide the short term care plan if the patient being discharged from hospital only requires personal care. There has to be either OT or physio home services input after discharge from hospital.

And the problem now is NIMBY - no-one wants to live near care in the community facilities such as the one OP has described.

”Dangerous men’ as you characterise them, do not escape their carers to attack people. In the two instances quoted on the thread, these were down to poor risk assessment, resulting in inappropriate and insecure care settings. The professionals charged with keeping these two individuals and those around them safe, failed miserably in their responsibilities.

Find a hobby that takes you away from the object of your fascination. You will find out soon enough anyway. As long as your new neighbours aren't coming into your property what does it matter?

Whatever work they do, the carers are probably legally and ethically forbidden to tell. What a costly situation, tho

Possibly employed by the faraway NHS department , but live locally?

I would say it’s someone with specific needs who is a danger when living with others.

My first thought would be a weed farm.... but then I smoke it, not UK

I'm sure it's easy to make fake uniforms too.

Probably someone who needs support in the community. Nosy person you.

We have something similar in our street. It’s a normal detached bungalow with 2 bedrooms (I’m pretty sure it’s just 2) and there appears to be one person living there and always 2 support staff 24 hours a day. I know a few people that have worked as support for adults with severe learning disabilities and it’s not uncommon for them to need one or more person on hand 24 hours a day to deal with behavioural problems. The resident of the house or the support staff don’t cause any issues at all and tbh you probably wouldn’t even know the set up there unless you paid attention and are home a lots of different times during the day (as me and DP are-we’re self employed so don’t have normal hours or days we work).

Depends if the person being cared for is paying for it all. Many do.

Maybe the man is a werewolf? It would take all 4 carers to restrain him during the full moons.