Parents 'should go abroad to avoid family courts'

[ScrambledSmegs]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-25641247

Yep, that's the BBC. Currently trending as one of the most read pages on the site.

I know they've tried to make this balanced by referencing CAFCASS, but it doesn't feel like much balance when the headline is something as scaremongering as that. It feels quite irresponsible.

Yes, I know that they're trying to drum up interest in their Panorama program, but I think they'd have been better off not publicising JHMP and his ramblings. Unfortunately, he's dangerous. Ridiculous and foolish, but dangerous.

Or perhaps you fail to get it that the issue is not Pacchieri's mental state but that Pacchieri wanted to say to the judge that she was not mentally inadequate but was bamboozled out of any opportunity to do so or to ask the legal "representative" to do so.

I keep asking you for your evidence for this, Holly, and you keep not replying apart from relying on the current statements of Ms Pacchieri about her mental state when she was psychotic which, as I have pointed out, really doesn't cut it.

Nonetheless the issue is that Pacchieri asserts that she was denied due process. Psychotic does not come into it. Mental state is not at issue, due process is at issue. (by the way I think psychotic is a much worse word to call someone than the word which I was not to say).

Pacchieri asserts lack of due process. The hostile parties have plenty of opportunity to produce evidence to refute that but choose not to. It is reasonable to assume they don't because they can't. At least can't without dishonesty and doctoring the record.

@nenny

"It is perfectly clear that the people the judge was unhappy with were those who helped her to return."

Who might they be? She had no family in england, her lawyer would not have been reasonably expected to carry this out, and her government had according to essex washed their hands of her.

And incidentally, I suspect her mental state would have been a lot better if they hadn't fscked her up with British psychiatry which is, in my experience, just about the worst there is to be found anywhere, literally anywhere, in the first world.

I don't know who knows least about mental health, redding or Holly.

Strapped down, redding?! Do you know anything at all about psychotic disorders and their treatment?

Holly, what on earth is wrong with the word psychotic? And what is your expertise of mental health systems across the first world - are you a health professional?

But I'm loving Mary's hungry hippos.

@nenny

It was an urgent application first made at 16:16 on 23 August 2012 by the NHS Trust with responsibility for Ms Pacchieri. He was able to disseminate all the info and run all applicable legal test in such a short time frame, the man deserves a medal!

He had the hearing and ruling same day.

@Devora

Since you are a MH professional, how do they keep someone from harming themselves without a person watching at every moment?

A lack of patient involvement

The CQC also identified serious problems with care and discharge planning. The mental health system is meant to promote recovery and enable people to have a positive discharge from hospital. Care viewed in this way should see the patients as a partner in recovery, someone actively involved in their care planning.

Remember the government mantra that in NHS care there will be “no decision about me, without me”? The CQC’s findings show that this isn’t the case in mental health. More than a quarter (27%) of care plans showed no evidence of patients being involved in them. Over one in five (22%) showed no sign of the patient’s view having been taken into account. These are major documents that inform care decisions. That’s quite a lot of decisions being made about me, without me. It’s hard to imagine another system that would settle for failing to meet a fundamental performance measure in a quarter of cases.

As for an effective discharge from hospital, the CQC found that one third of care plans contained no sign of discharge planning. This is difficult to reconcile with a service supposedly focused on recovery. The report correctly states that hospitals have a legal responsibility to provide ongoing planning of aftercare, so why is this so frequently absent?

The CQC’s report demands to be read and acted on. It suggests a system of coercion not collaboration, of containment instead of recovery. It is commendable that the CQC is picking up these failings but concerning that the problems with lack of involvement in discharge and care planning have remained the same for two years. The CQC describes this as unacceptable. I agree. The question is – what will drive change now?

People being excluded from their care decisions, people whose discharge is given no thought, people being wrongly deprived of their freedom, these people need services to radically change the way they operate; putting people back in control of their lives. Failing in one fifth, one quarter, one third of cases is not good enough. Merely saying that things have been unacceptable for two years is not enough. Should services continue to resist change, we need a regulator that will challenge and change those systems.

Sounds like a real winner.

redding, if someone in the grip of psychosis is deemed a danger to themselves or others, they will usually be sectioned. In hospital it is easier to get them to comply with medication, which will have a calming effect. They will be under observation at all times - usually in communal areas, sometimes in their own bedroom. I don't know what your mental picture is of someone with psychosis - screaming, ranting, foaming at the mouth? Of course it can be like that, but restraint is only necessary on occasions, not all the time.

@devora

"In hospital it is easier to get them to comply with medication, which will have a calming effect."

Except that NHS has stated that they did not use medication for fear of harming the foetus.

I was describing a general scenario, not commenting on treatment in this case. Clearly none of us know exactly what treatment was provided to AP. Very much doubt she was kept strapped down for ten weeks, though.

Have you ever met someone in psychosis? It is far from easy to be around, but I honestly can't think why you are imagining she would need to be continuously strapped down.

Devora: > Holly, what on earth is wrong with the word psychotic? And what is your expertise of mental health systems across the first world - are you a health professional?

Devora - perhaps you are OK with me describing you as psychotic (you know, if the hat fits then wear it) but I request that you don't describe people you have not interacted with that way.

Now, as to my experience with the psychiatric system in Britain (where I have lived more years than any other country) or any of the seven other first world countries in which I have lived in my interesting life, I would like to make abundantly clear my response to your enquiry:-
In fact let there there no doubt that,
my involvement with psychiatry,
at various times and places,
just to be clear about this,
and I want to be polite and courteous about this
well the answer is
politely that is
the answer is
that that information is confidential.

There I've said it. Now I was greatly tempted to convey the same concept in rather less subtle terms. And still could if you like.
In fact I could write about inserting into a Meerschaum followed by ignition.
Or better yet invite you to actioning long walks involving short piers.

I trust we are clear on that issue then. Of course keeping confidences is an alien concept to British medical professionals, I do realise that and make allowances by spelling it out at length.

Spero: > But Munby hasn't made a blanket ruling that names must always be publicised - you can still apply on a case by case basis for your name not to be revealed if you can make out a sensible argument as to why this would harm you if it were.

Won't people who have mischaracterised and slanted evidence always be harmed when their name is publicised and won't want it to be? And will concoct some argument or other. Or have the conspiring judge do it for them.

Isn't the whole idea of naming and shaming to publish the names of people who would prefer to be anonymous?

Blimey!

OK, well for the sake of other people reading this, can I be clear that I mean no offence to anybody in using the term 'psychotic'. I use it not in a general sense to denote poor mental health, but in the specific clinical sense.

You are right important decisions should be rushed and not closely examined

Do tell me, Redding, precisely where you allege I said that? And whilst you're doing it, tell me also where I alleged that Pakistan was imprisoning the woman in the recent case?

Redding, your interpretation of the case law including Re C on the issue of consent is erroneous and incomplete. Have a look, for example, at Re L (A Minor) [1998] 2 FLR 810. The courts have repeatedly made it clear that the right to refuse treatment of patients without capacity will be overridden if it is in their best interests, particularly to save their lives.

"It is perfectly clear that the people the judge was unhappy with were those who helped her to return."

Who might they be? She had no family in england, her lawyer would not have been reasonably expected to carry this out, and her government had according to essex washed their hands of her.

Tell you what, Redding, why don't you go away and find out and tell us. Producing your evidence, of course. Anything rather than this everlasting tedious wild speculation where you desperately try to propagate conspiracy theories whilst, yet again, evading the question: why on earth would all these people in authority ever have wanted to enter into this conspiracy?

It was an urgent application first made at 16:16 on 23 August 2012 by the NHS Trust with responsibility for Ms Pacchieri. He was able to disseminate all the info and run all applicable legal test in such a short time frame, the man deserves a medal!

Why must it be a short time frame? Do you know when the hearing of the application began and ended? Bear in mind that urgent applications can be and are made out of hours.

Pacchieri asserts lack of due process. The hostile parties have plenty of opportunity to produce evidence to refute that but choose not to

The judgments in each and every case have been published and clearly demonstrate full due process. The fact that Ms Pacchieri, whom numerous Italian and English doctors have attested to have serious bipolar disorder with psychotic episodes (and that is a purely scientific term) and who was in the grip of a serious manic episode at the relevant time, asserts otherwise, does not make it so.

Frankly, when you have to resort to unsupported allegations that records have been doctored to support your case, you are demonstrating the massive paucity of your arguments.

I don't know who knows least about mental health, redding or Holly.

^

This.

@nenny

It says when the FIRST application was made in the precursor to the hearing transcript. It was 4:16pm on 23 Aug 2012, also the same night as the hearing only giving him hours not days or weeks to go over all the info provided.

"The mother in the Pakistan case fled to the UK because she was effectively being held prisoner." In this sentence the only association you give for her being imprisoned is Pakistan. If you were to actually give context it might make sense, otherwise it reads as Pakistan holding her prisoner.

@nenny

In RE:C it was not in the best interest to save the man's life? Also you don't mention the legal test devised from this exercise. Where is it stated that the proper legal test were applied in the hearing?

Maryz Fri 21-Feb-14 20:13:11
And the person who is posting on behalf of JH since his ban Holly

Mary - that reads to me like an attack.
I propose a truce: I offer not to be rude and nasty to you.