Ranulph Fiennes - care home restrictions, DoLS ?

[Mixymaxymoxy]

Ranulph Fiennes - does anyone understand what’s happening with him? I’ve read several articles that say his wife has LPA, has put him in a care home / several care homes under false names and against his will, and various friends / relatives are outraged about how he’s being treated. He has Parkinson’s. It’s not clear whether he has capacity.

The article talks about excessive restrictions being placed on his freedom, preventing him from seeing friends etc. The phrase in one article is ‘arrangements for his care were subsequently found to amount to an unauthorised deprivation of his liberty.’ How does that come about? It doesn’t say how these ‘arrangements’ come to be in place? is it just his wife telling the home not to let anyone visit him? Telling them that he has to wear a disguise on walks etc? I’ve only had one relative in a care home, but I can’t imagine the staff there going along with bizarre requests like this 🤷‍♀️ But how would it have worked if we’d said, for example, that specific individuals were not allowed to visit her? Are care homes required to follow instructions from relatives like that?

The article also talks about the lack of a DOLS but implies that his wife should be supplying this to the home: I thought it was the care provider who’d need to apply for this, not family?

i know that there are very knowledgable people on this board and wondered what your take on this story was.

This kind of purience is exactly why he might need to be protected from nosy parkers.

That’s not why I was posting. It’s the legal situation, which as reported doesn’t match what I understood to be the way these things were handled. Taking his name out of it:

Can family members, who have LPA for an elderly person, set restrictive conditions on what they are allowed to do / wear / who they are allowed to see when living in a care home? If we told the care home that my MILs estranged, unpleasant brother might turn up and he wasn’t to be allowed to see her, would they have to enforce that?

And who is responsible for deciding thatfor a DOLS is necessary and applying for it? Care home or relative?

Adult social care usually apply for DOLs in my experience, and the threshold is high

I don't know anything about RFs situation

My understanding of Mental capacity is that it is

A) situation specific - so a person may lack the capacity to make complex medical conditions, but still maintain the capacity to say if he does or does not want to get dressed in the morning.

B) even if someone lacks capacity to make their own decision (understand, retain, weigh-up, communicate), we still have to take their refusals and choices in to consideration, and use the "least restricitve option", therefore, if him requesting seeing a specific person that presents a risk to him then it would seem reasonable to step in and stop this, it would not be reasonable to shut down all his requests.

Nothing wrong with OP’s post. At least the case is raising awareness. OP I hope someone comes along who can answer some of these questions.

I think it’s of public interest that someone can arrange for someone else to be held illegally in a care home. Regardless of who that is.

In this case, the LPA appears to be moving him as soon as the care home is non compliant or asks too many questions.

She has lied to care home about his identity, arranged medication that isn’t in his name, hasn’t allowed him to be seen by the care home’s GP.

She appears to have told them he has some kind of undercover role and needs to be disguised when out and about for his safety.

It is all very odd, and could be thought an unusual situation.
BUT actually lots of people have family disputes, and people have posted here about being unable to find an elderly relative who’s been whisked away. Wasn’t there someone whose step mum had been taken by her DD, and the poster’s Dad didn’t know where she was?

RF’s friends and family haven’t seen him for 2 years and are very keen to do so.

Interestingly, and specific to this case, his wife’s estranged son is in the group trying to find him.

I can yes. People on here voluntarily share deeply personal experiences all the time. No one is forced to read a thread or to post on it. That’s one of the points of an anonymous message board. Hth.

i wouldn’t put this in Chat. Maybe I’m wrong but this board (EP) tends to be less busy and populated by posters who have extensive real life experience of dealing with all manner of legal issues relating to the care of elderly people. I don’t have any interest in gossip about RF - what I wondered was whether other posters have experienced similar situations and how they dealt with them.

What a ridiculous response. A judge/ solicitor/ social worker/ LA dols officer/ care home employee could come along and respond to OP’s queries. HTH

A DoLs order is made for any adult who it has been decided should live in a home where they don't have the freedoms that would normally be expected of an adult - usually the freedom to come and go from that home as they wish. They are very common and basically any adult with reduced capacity due to mental health, learning disability or age related conditions who is living in a care home should have one.

It can be a bit of a red herring as it's adult social care who typically apply for them and in my experience half the time don't get round to it because it's seen as a legal formality, because who is going to challenge restricting the freedom of a vulnerable older person with dementia? (for example).

It's obviously an issue in this case however. because some people are disputing the restrictions placed on this poor man, so it's important the court clarifies.

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with your post either OP.
There’s obviously a considerable amount of concern at the moment about RF’s welfare,
I don’t think it does any harm to bring people’s attention to this.
i had no idea this was possible.

DOLS not worth the paper they are written on since they revoked Cheshire West.

Self funders fall through the gaps unfortunately as unless social services are involved there’s no oversight. Having LPA doesn’t give the right to act like you saying is happening above.

I hope someone steps in.

The home has to apply for DOLs, but if the wife has places him there under a false name (and not disclosed this to the home, then a DOLs wouldn't actually be legal. Adult Social Care then approve the dols (and do the capacity assessment etc).

I haven't followed the news reports so I can't comment on the actual case, but the DOLs is not for the wife to apply for.

If the wife has LPA then asking he has lost capacity to decide where his care needs are met (and capacity is time and decision specific) then she does have the right to decide where his care needs are met in his best interests.

It's a tricky one, because having someone in their own home with dementia is extremely challenging for anyone else living there.

If he is being constantly moved about, I can't see how that is in his best interests though. Unfortunately LPA is extremely difficult to remove from someone and the office of the public guardian notoriously slow and ineffective.

Aside from DoLS his wife has POA I'm assuming for health and welfare, and financial affairs and property ,so presently she is the decision maker for his care etc. However any one of the care providers or family members with concerns can report her to the Office of Public Guardian with concerns that she is not fulfilling her role in his best interest and it is then down to the OPG to investigate and they can then relinquish the POA. A Court Deputy can then be appointed by the Court of Protection. The OPG should report any safeguarding concerns they uncover to police and Adult safeguarding as appropriate.

Also to add he must lack capacity otherwise DoLS would not be applicable, if he had capacity she currently has no duties under LPA health and welfare and can only assist and support with financial affairs and property with his consent.

Re. My other question: do care homes follow the instructions of the attorney at all times, in all situations? I remember going through the POA document with my dad when he was signing it and it goes into quite a lot of detail about everything the attorney has power over, and it does include who the person can ‘associate with’. Do homes turn away would-be visitors off they are not approved or have been actively told not allow in?

I’m a journalist and I’ve been reading the Times coverage. It is clear the media is trying to help him. The recent Times article is a masterclass in how to get as close to a restrictive NDA (which his wife is making everyone who sees him sign first) without breaking it. Consider John Simpson’s quote:

“I’d like to tell the relevant authorities everything I know about the way he’s been treated.

It’s a perfect quote. It tells you everything without telling you anything.

I read about this yesterday and rolled my eyes hard. I imagine we're only hearing a fraction of the story and the false name is for his privacy. There might be a very good reason his wife doesn't want these friends to be in touch+ I wouldn't as they clearly talk to the press!

As I understand it, his wife does have LPA but she has not completed certain other legally- required paperwork.
I think this case is quite tricky - it makes the news because of who he is, and the alleged secrecy imposed by Lady Fiennes.
But it worries me that it might lead to unfair judgement of anyone who has an LPA for a family member - arrangements for a care home are usually the right thing for someone who doesn't have capacity. It's also appropriate to have a DNR for the vast majority of patients. We shouldn't let one case cloud our judgement about the immense value in these types of arrangements.

Entirely agree. RF's close friends have been expressing concern about his wellbeing for some time--I've been following the story in the press. He is a much-loved public figure and of course a lot of people, including John Simpson, will be worried about him and wondering what's going on.

A PoA does have a lot of power and can ask a care home to not permit certain visitors. They would probably couch this in terms of preventing harm to the elderly person. Care Homes vary enormously with regard to due diligence and the alleged repeatedly moving RF to different care homes suggests he is moved when the PoA doesn’t provide a DoLs and the Care Home start asking awkward questions.

Sadly the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) are not good at addressing abuses of LPAs.

I do think this thread is useful as in my experience money makes some people act in ways that most of us consider shocking. It is not unusual for PoAs to steal money and this only comes to light when the person dies and the rest of the family discover their inheritance is much less than it should be. PoAs will also choose not pay for the appropriate level of care for the vulnerable adult even though it’s the vulnerable adults money.

My mum is in a care home. I was asked to sign
Dols but refused on the grounds it was not necessary. She is not mobile! So yes people with POA can do that.

DOLs is relevant to non-mobile people - the person who was at the centre of the Cheshire west situation which led to DOLs was not mobile either.

DOLs isn't just about trying to escape. It's about lack of choice and control.

For me, the frequency of moves speaks about whose interests are being considered.
And the NDA would not prevent those visitors who are allowed to see him- if there are any beyond the wife and DD- from speaking up to assure everyone he is in good hands.

That’s with the frequent moves suggests he is not.

But I don’t think anyone would infer from this story that DNR and DoLs are never appropriate.

Poor man.

My mum had DOLS when she refuses to take pain medication, the nurses applied a pain patch while they were washing her. They did ask me beforehand but I got the impression they'd have done it anyway,this was in a hospital.