It's ok if you want to be bleeding heart liberal about it and insist that because she's the parent to a disabled child she can do no wrong.
We'll have to agree to disagree on that hopelessly naive thought process.
There's ample evidence, much of it shared by her on her own social media platforms that when Harvey has been ostensibly in her care he's been left with various people who are not paid or trained carers, including the make up girl. It's all out there for all to see. You can chose to ignore it if you want.
Please also don't try and imply that I am in any way disablist. That is wholly incorrect. There is a world of difference between showing Jett and Harvey with, for example, their tops off, or in their underwear. Jett is a young child - now whilst I wouldn't personally choose to show my kids semi clothed on public social media some people consider that acceptable because they are a child. Would Harvey at his current age want to be shown semi naked if he was able to consent? He wouldn't.
His mother should be protecting his interests, not continuing her own self promotion. If Harvey was female, with the same disabilities and lack of capacity, photos in underwear wouldn't be considered acceptable for the dignity of the person who cannot consent.
But you keep deluding yourselves what a great mother she is or that because she loves him it's all ok.
Do you know she also didn't pay the shortfall in his fees for his previous schools? Prioritising spending on luxuries over paying for her own child's education, and as she is now going through bankruptcy they won't see a penny of what she owes. But I'm sure that's all acceptable too.