The judge said this case - unusually - could be reported because of its public interest as regards matters such as DoL.
Today's Guardian seems to refer to the case of Mr A and his Dad
- Thread starter AlsoConfused
- Start date
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/aug/08/court-of-protection-case-reporting?INTCMP=SRCH
Mr A should be applauded for having the tenacity to keep going - against all opposition.
Mr A should be applauded for having the tenacity to keep going - against all opposition.
Absolutely amazing
Goodness me, I didn't expect this to happen - Mr A has actually managed, against so much controversy and adversity, to get his case heard AND reported in real time by the COP! The break with protocol by the (secret) Court is a triumph in itself. I hope there will be more good news to come.
Goodness me, I didn't expect this to happen - Mr A has actually managed, against so much controversy and adversity, to get his case heard AND reported in real time by the COP! The break with protocol by the (secret) Court is a triumph in itself. I hope there will be more good news to come.
Hi all,
I've moved this thread from the main Support forum to 'Raising Awareness': as it relates to a news story, this seems like a more appropriate home.
I've moved this thread from the main Support forum to 'Raising Awareness': as it relates to a news story, this seems like a more appropriate home.
Unfortunately I don't subscribe to Times On Line. Are there any points you could PM me?
Thanks.
Well done Mr A for getting the legal system to listen to you.
I may have missed Mr A's posts explaining the case as I have never quite understood the inns and outs up to now. The report laid out the facts clearly which for the first time I understand.
One thing which does come immediately to my mind is the high handed manner in which the local authority social services department have acted.
Without proof, and, as Mrt A states, only after dispute had arisen, did they claim that Mr A had abused his father. It does make me agree that this was only brought into play because they did not want him to have unsupervised visits with his father.
Begs the question of why they had allowed unsupervised visits prior to this?
xxTinaT
One thing which does come immediately to my mind is the high handed manner in which the local authority social services department have acted.
Without proof, and, as Mrt A states, only after dispute had arisen, did they claim that Mr A had abused his father. It does make me agree that this was only brought into play because they did not want him to have unsupervised visits with his father.
Begs the question of why they had allowed unsupervised visits prior to this?
xxTinaT
Hi all,
It is good that this case is being highlighted. It is so important that people recognise how frustrating this system can be and that some people have too much power.
No person should be deprived of seeing their relative. That is not care.
I hope things improve for this man and his son...
EmJ
It is good that this case is being highlighted. It is so important that people recognise how frustrating this system can be and that some people have too much power.
No person should be deprived of seeing their relative. That is not care.
I hope things improve for this man and his son...
EmJ
I am delighted for Mr Angry. The Deprivation of Liberty laws give such huge powers to the authority that this case needs to be heard in public. And I wish Mr Angry and his father the very best of luck.
If they are using the fact that there has been no contact between son and father for three months as a reason to keep him in care, well, that is dreadful.
I do feel strongly about this case.
If they are using the fact that there has been no contact between son and father for three months as a reason to keep him in care, well, that is dreadful.
I do feel strongly about this case.