11/06/15
Karen Millard has clearly stated that she received the evidence I forwarded to her on the 8th May. On Monday Liz Gillespie has implied that it has “disappeared” and therefore asked for it again.
The whole point of James’s website is to stop evidence going “astray” I will post it below. All emails to ssadultcare.review@solihull.gov.uk and katyivko@solihull.gov.uk are Solihull Adult Social Services and all emails detailing the offences committed under the Mental Capacity Act 2205 Section 16 and the Disability Discrimination Laws, according to my barrister, by James’s principal carer have been ignored by Solihull Social Services:
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Simon Foden <simon@foden.net>
Date: 2 February 2015 at 18:40
Subject: Fwd: Fw: Monica Ryder’s offences under the Mental Capacity Act 2005
To: Monica Ryder <monica.ryder@btinternet.com>, jessex <jessex@solihull.gov.uk>, Beverley Jessop <bjessop@qac.ac.uk>, Andy Dennehy <adennehy@qac.ac.uk>, MaryBadger MaryBadger <marybadger@qac.ac.uk>, “Ivko, Katy (Adult Social Care – Solihull MBC)” <katyivko@solihull.gov.uk>, s502amordey <s502amordey@merstone.solihull.sch.uk>, ssadultcare.review@solihull.gov.uk
Dear Monica
James was unable to Skype his loved ones on Thursday and I suspect that you, based on your poor reputation as a woman of low moral standing as abuser of the incapacity of a seriously disabled young adult, a serial offender under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, a liar to the professionals who care for James, serial defamer, tormentor and terroriser of his family – that you had something to do with this. I must make clear that there are no excuses for James to be deprived, under, the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to Skype his loved ones for 10 minutes a fortnight.
I’ve had enough and I just cant take your abuse any more. Where is your solicitor? In your email below you threatened to hire a solicitor – were is he or she? If you don’t carry out your threat to hire a solicitor then you are admitting that the statements I’ve made above that I have proven way beyond the balance of probability – beyond all reasonable doubt that I have substantiated with the 4 months of evidence that I’ve furnished the professionals involved with James’s care with – are true.
You must hire a solicitor like you forced me to do when you unilaterally and totally without foundation made yourself incommunicado by changing your phone number and refusing to answer Skype and unilaterally denied James his Skype access to his loved ones that you voluntary made following my parent’s deaths. You knew James was totally dependent on you to facilitate the Skype contact. When you put James beyond the reach of his loved ones you committed a totally unprovoked aggressive act of mental terror. For several weeks James’s family didn’t know where James was and if he was well, sick alive or dead. Eventually I reported James missing to social services and a requested a heath and safety check on him and the social worker said, presumably based on your offence of abusing his incapacity under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 the social worker said if I want to see James I must hire a solicitor and the barrister who advised me said you were committing offences under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
Once I’d finally tracked my son down at his new residential college you embarked on a cruel and relentless campaign of aggressive libel and defamation against James’s hard pressed father by serially and relentlessly defaming me as an unfit person to contact my son at his new college.
On Thursday it came to light that you are still tormenting and terrorising me and putting obstacles in the way of my severely disabled and incapacitated young adult son from Skyping his loved ones and, in particular his beloved brother baby Si who James has renamed Baby Ki.
I insist that you give me the contact details of your solicitor because I have a large dossier of evidence gathered since late summer last year for your solicitor to plough through and I particularly need to know from your solicitor:
1 What exactly is your problem?
2 Why can’t you just live and let live?
3 Why did you force me to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that you are a woman of low moral standing as an abuser of the incapacity of a seriously disabled young adult, a serial offender under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, a liar to the professionals who care for James, a serial defamer, a tormentor and terroriser of his family before I was allowed to see and contact my son at his new residential college. (Wasn’t this just plane stupid when you could have alternatively just told the truth to the professionals involved in my son’s care and not abused our son’s incapacity and not terrorised and tormented James’s family)?
4 How your solicitor intends to calculate the financial compensation remedy you owe me for compensation for the mental torment you caused me for tormenting and terrorising me by committing a totally unprovoked aggressive act of mental terror. For several weeks James’s family didn’t know where James was and if he was well, sick alive or dead. Not satisfied with that you went on to add to the torment by libling and defaming me to the professionals involved in my son’s care as an unfit person to contact him at his new residential college. You can see from the body of evidence you made me present to be able to contact my son at his new residential college that I have been becoming increasingly more distressed as you piled on the abuse – turned the screw – adding defamation and libel to torment and terror. The bottom line is that you have forced me to suffer a prolonged, serious and totally unnecessary period of mental distress and loss of earnings spanning many months as you carried out your hate campaign against James’s family and against James by effectively leaving no stone unturned to cruelly abuse his incapacity to “airbrush” his loved ones out of his life and forced me to put in ever more effort to clear my name from your lies, libel and defamation and to prove I was indeed James’s father and have a fantastic loving relationship with him and to be able to see my totally defenceless and incapacitated son at his new residential college.
5 What steps your solicitor intends to take to prevent you from offending, abusing our son’s incapacity , telling lies, defaming and libling James’s father and tormenting and terrorising James’s family again?
I’m very very contactable. Your solicitor can email me at simon@foden.net and or call me on 0121 207 0010.
I look forward to making contact with your solicitor – I have a lot to tell him / her and I have a substantial body of evidence for him / her to plough through.
The legitimate exposure of your offences under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, the Disability Discriminations laws, your continued abuse of a seriously disabled young adult’s incapacity, the libellous defamatory lies you fed the professionals involved in preparing our son for his placement at Queen Alexandra College in Birmingham – the exposure will continue to an ever wider audience until your solicitor advises you end end your malicious and hateful campaign of terror against a severely disabled and incapacitated young adult’s family.
Yours sincerely
Simon Foden
Monica
Stop this abuse now and stop goading QAC and Social Services to break the law
The additional day will be nice but there are no no go areas for James brothers – you cannot exclude them from James’s residence – as explained the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Disability Discrimination laws forbid it. As explained in my last email for the 5 weeks that James brothers are in town the living skills curriculum takes a lower priority than showing off his place to his brothers which all non incapacitated people do and you must comply with the Acts and not abuse James by taking advantage of his incapacity to deprive him of his liberty to practice his living skills in the presence of his brothers and receive his loved ones as his guests in his own place for a very very short period of time. Just twice a week for 5 weeks an hour will be sufficient.
An hour will be sufficient
An hour will be sufficient
Monica – did you get that — AN HOUR WILL BE SUFFICIENT JUST 2X A WEEK JUST 5 WEEKS and James family won’t be around for another year so that my severely incapacitated son can seize his opportunity granted him by the metal Capacity Act 2005 and the Disability Discrimination laws to stop you from depriving him of his liberty to maintain his loving bonds with his brothers in a dignified manner, in his own place of residence, something they can talk about in years to come, something that his non incapacitated peers can do without relying on a third party to make a call for them. Sasha will never forget seeing his brother in his own place and the awe that inspires. Its like when your first teenage peer gets a car and you feel the awe of their independence when they take you out in it or when you visit your first peer to get their own place. Sasha will never forget this and James will be proud to show him round.
Its not really an hour its only 50 minutes because we normally see him for 10 minutes on Skype.
Judging by the manner in which you misrepresented the facts to social services and QAC judging by their shock that James has a loving paternal family who jointly raised him it seems exclusivity and legal compliance was the last thing on your mind. The main reason James brothers were appointed contacts at QAC by the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Disability Discrimination laws was because you went out of your way to take advantage of James incapacity to abuse a severely incapacitated and vulnerable young adult by airbrushing his brothers one of whom grew up with James – out of his life. This was an act of intolerable abuse against a person as vulnerable and incapacitated as James. What chance did James have of getting back in touch with his family? If it wasn’t for my actions in requesting a Health and Safety check for him he may never have seen his brothers ever again.
Please grow up and accept that his living skills can take place as well as him being able to touch base with his family at his residence for a very short time – see above. When I was a Uni every single student had their liberty to show off their place and receive visits in their place of their loved ones. There were no third parties around saying you cant do that! Nobody said all your after lesson time should be spent learning skills! The bottom line is that James’s severe vulnerability means that his whole life has been controlled, choreographed and spent doing what others have told him he can and can’t do and nobody who read James brain scan reports and watched his videos with his brothers of whom he has a very very short window of opportunity to exercise his rights under the Acts with would say he should be deprived of this brief opportunity because you want to break the law and deprive him of his liberty to do.
What is all this either or? What ever happened to inclusivity and compliance with the law so that QAC don’t have to face a SENDIST Tribunal and bad publicity because you just will not stop goading them to break the law?
What is wrong with legal compliance? What is wrong with playing by the rules?
All you have achieved with your tirade of abuse against James and his family is get us appointed by the Mental Capacity Act 2005 as named contacts at QAC and at whatever other place he resides at.
I and James brothers have been appointed named contacts by the authority of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to stop you abusing him by taking advantage of his severe vulnerability and incapacity to deprive him of liberty and put him at a disadvantage to his non incapacitated peers – disability discrimination.
James will be more set back if you keep abusing him and trying to deprive him of his legal rights which I will see are adhered to for him.
Now please grow up and be a little bit more inclusive and broad minded and pragmatic.
We can either bring James brothers at a time of out choosing for some very short visits or we can agree some times that you think are better than others for short visits so James can enjoy his liberty to can show off his new place to his brothers using our powers under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to ensure that James rights are adhered to or we can agree some times you think may be more suitable than others.
Simon
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Simon Foden <simon@foden.net>
Date: 18 December 2014 at 22:48
Subject: Re: Fw: Monica Ryder’s offences under the Mental Capacity Act 2005
To: Monica Ryder <monica.ryder@btinternet.com>, jessex <jessex@solihull.gov.uk>, Beverley Jessop <bjessop@qac.ac.uk>, ssadultcare.review@solihull.gov.uk, “Ivko, Katy (Adult Social Care – Solihull MBC)” <katyivko@solihull.gov.uk>, s502amordey <s502amordey@merstone.solihull.sch.uk>
Monica
I have no problems with the police – don’t forget its you that is the offender and slanderer and I who is the victim.
You are the one who has been slanderous and the more you deprive James of his liberty the more compensation I will be claiming from you. I urge you to apologise to me and end this 3 month nightmare you unilaterally started before it starts to cost you money. For 3 months you have terrorised James family and it is high time you are held to account for it and letting you off with an apology is doing you a big favour. If you deprive James of his liberty to see his loved ones this weekend you will be committing a further offence under the he Mental Capacity Act 2005 and I will be claiming the £3000 cost of the trip to bring James’s family to see him and I will also be claiming for your libellous defamatory remarks that I am unfit to visit my son in his place of residence and that will be much more than £3000. I’ll be looking at the tens of thousands. And then there is the mental stress I suffered as you have bent over backwards and left no stone unturned to abuse James under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and to defame and belittle his loving father as being unfit to see him in his place of residence. This is the compensation I’m owed for the terror I suffered while you was abusing James’s incapacity to deprive him of his loved ones who cared for him until his teenage years and beyond.
Its about time you learned the old English adage: “People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones”!
Now, for the last time please apologise for terrorising James family during the last three months so you can save money, I can have peace of mind that you are not going to offend again under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and abuse my son’s incapacity to deprive him of his loved ones. I urge you to show common sense and work with James family to help his incapacity not abuse his incapacity to terrorise his family as you have been doing since you unilaterally broke off communication an commenced to offend under the mental capacity act 2005.
See sense
Apologise
Move on
This is the cheapest solution and the most beneficial solution for James.
I hope that helps
Simon
On 18 Dec 2014 15:04, “Monica Ryder” <monica.ryder@btinternet.com> wrote:
Simon further to this email you can forget seeing James at the weekend or next week. I’ve had enough of your slanderous accusations and i’m taking legal advice. if you come to the house i will call the police so don’t bother.
—– Forwarded Message —–
From: Simon Foden <simon@foden.net>
To: jessex <jessex@solihull.gov.uk>; ‘Monica Ryder’ <monica.ryder@btinternet.com>; Beverley Jessop <bjessop@qac.ac.uk>; “Ivko, Katy (Adult Social Care – Solihull MBC)” <katyivko@solihull.gov.uk>; ssadultcare.review@solihull.gov.uk; s502amordey <s502amordey@merstone.solihull.sch.uk>
Sent: Thursday, 18 December 2014, 12:06
Subject: Monica Ryder’s offences under the Mental Capacity Act 2005
Hi Jeannette
This email is strictly confidential and is not to be distributed beyond the ccd recipients James’s last school current collage. solihull inclusion and access social services and Monica.
This email summarizes Monica’s offences that she recently committed under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 as she abused a severely incapacitated and very vulnerable young adult by abusing his incapacity to airbrush his loving and growing paternal family of father, 2 brothers and uncle a step mom and a sister due to be born in April completely out of his life and deprive him of his liberty to see his family as guests at his place of residence in the same manner his non incapacitated student peers can do at their hall of residence when away at uni. There Monica discriminated against James due to his disability as well as committed a serious offence against a vulnerable young adult under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
Since my parents died 3 years ago Monica and I maintained a business like relationship for James’s sake and we maintained fortnightly Skype contact until Monica suddenly, without reason and completely unilaterally tapered off Skype contact before ending it all together.
She changed her phone number and made herself completely incommunicado. I was forced to contact social services for an urgent health and safety report on James to find out were he was and if indeed he was ok.
Katy the social worker appeared shocked that James had a loving and growing paternal family who had cared for him all his life. She told me that James was at QAC and that I cannot contact him there because Monica had forbidden it and James was nolonger a child ending paternal responsibility. To Katy’s credit she did tell me to take legal advice and the barrister who advised me told me that Monica was abusing a severely incapacitated and very vulnerable young adult by abusing his incapacity to airbrush his loving and growing paternal family of father, 2 brothers and uncle a step mom and a sister due to be born in April completely out of his life and deprive him of his liberty to see his family as guests at his place of residence in the same manner his non incapacitated student peers can do at their hall of residence when away at uni.
Katy later produced a but she covered up my reports of abuse. However, my reply to the report that detailed Monicas abuse against James was logged and I was sent a password protected secure email to confirm it was logged in order to prevent a negligence claim against social services.
Both Social Services and QAC were completely shocked at my arrival on the scene and I was initially treated as an emposter poking my nose into other peoples business. This can only have been because Monica told them a pack of lies about me as she totally misrepresented the facts to them.
I have 3 months of documentary evidence of Monicas abuse of my incapacitated son as she left him in a strange place totally out of reach of his family and poor /James must have been terrified his family and brothers had abandoned him. This was also a terrifying experience for James family as we had to fight yo prove we were indeed his family.
Monica also went on to defame and slur my good reputation as James father who had always protected James when he was in trouble claiming I was not a fit person to see my son at his residence. This is very rich coming from a known offender (to social services and QAC) under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and a known liar who had furnished both social services and QAC with a pack of lies as she misrepresented the facts to them.
However, on this occasion I don’t believe its in James’s interest to prosecute Monica for her offences under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and I also won’t be seeking damages for her defamatory remarks she has slurred me with to QAC and social services. This time only.
Therefore. As I’ve proved beyond all reasonable doubt and way past the balance of probability that Monica is an unfit person to manage single handedly James’s next institution al transition please ensue I’m kept in the loop at every single stage. Im in England two months every year and in Thailand I have a Birmingham phone number: 0121 270 0010 and 0121 711 4411 and I have a UK address: 125 Queen Street Sheffield S1 2DU where all my correspondence is immediately emailed to me.
James’s regular Skype contact is restored and his contact with his family and brothers and uncle is now restored. I thank QAC for this and I sympathise with them for having to deal with Monica’s lies and abuse against James under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
I trust this is satisfactory.
I do seek an apology from Monica for the terror of the last 3 months as she lied and offended.
Kind regards
Simon
| <simon@foden.net> | |||
| to kmillard | ||
| to kmillard |
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Simon Foden <simon@foden.net>
Date: 2 February 2015 at 18:40
Subject: Fwd: Fw: Monica Ryder’s offences under the Mental Capacity Act 2005
To: Monica Ryder <monica.ryder@btinternet.com>, jessex <jessex@solihull.gov.uk>, Beverley Jessop <bjessop@qac.ac.uk>, Andy Dennehy <adennehy@qac.ac.uk>, MaryBadger MaryBadger <marybadger@qac.ac.uk>, “Ivko, Katy (Adult Social Care – Solihull MBC)” <katyivko@solihull.gov.uk>, s502amordey <s502amordey@merstone.solihull.sch.uk>, ssadultcare.review@solihull.gov.uk
Dear Monica
James was unable to Skype his loved ones on Thursday and I suspect that you, based on your poor reputation as a woman of low moral standing as abuser of the incapacity of a seriously disabled young adult, a serial offender under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, a liar to the professionals who care for James, serial defamer, tormentor and terroriser of his family – that you had something to do with this. I must make clear that there are no excuses for James to be deprived, under, the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to Skype his loved ones for 10 minutes a fortnight.
I’ve had enough and I just cant take your abuse any more. Where is your solicitor? In your email below you threatened to hire a solicitor – were is he or she? If you don’t carry out your threat to hire a solicitor then you are admitting that the statements I’ve made above that I have proven way beyond the balance of probability – beyond all reasonable doubt that I have substantiated with the 4 months of evidence that I’ve furnished the professionals involved with James’s care with – are true.
You must hire a solicitor like you forced me to do when you unilaterally and totally without foundation made yourself incommunicado by changing your phone number and refusing to answer Skype and unilaterally denied James his Skype access to his loved ones that you voluntary made following my parent’s deaths. You knew James was totally dependent on you to facilitate the Skype contact. When you put James beyond the reach of his loved ones you committed a totally unprovoked aggressive act of mental terror. For several weeks James’s family didn’t know where James was and if he was well, sick alive or dead. Eventually I reported James missing to social services and a requested a heath and safety check on him and the social worker said, presumably based on your offence of abusing his incapacity under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 the social worker said if I want to see James I must hire a solicitor and the barrister who advised me said you were committing offences under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
Once I’d finally tracked my son down at his new residential college you embarked on a cruel and relentless campaign of aggressive libel and defamation against James’s hard pressed father by serially and relentlessly defaming me as an unfit person to contact my son at his new college.
On Thursday it came to light that you are still tormenting and terrorising me and putting obstacles in the way of my severely disabled and incapacitated young adult son from Skyping his loved ones and, in particular his beloved brother baby Si who James has renamed Baby Ki.
I insist that you give me the contact details of your solicitor because I have a large dossier of evidence gathered since late summer last year for your solicitor to plough through and I particularly need to know from your solicitor:
1 What exactly is your problem?
2 Why can’t you just live and let live?
3 Why did you force me to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that you are a woman of low moral standing as an abuser of the incapacity of a seriously disabled young adult, a serial offender under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, a liar to the professionals who care for James, a serial defamer, a tormentor and terroriser of his family before I was allowed to see and contact my son at his new residential college. (Wasn’t this just plane stupid when you could have alternatively just told the truth to the professionals involved in my son’s care and not abused our son’s incapacity and not terrorised and tormented James’s family)?
4 How your solicitor intends to calculate the financial compensation remedy you owe me for compensation for the mental torment you caused me for tormenting and terrorising me by committing a totally unprovoked aggressive act of mental terror. For several weeks James’s family didn’t know where James was and if he was well, sick alive or dead. Not satisfied with that you went on to add to the torment by libling and defaming me to the professionals involved in my son’s care as an unfit person to contact him at his new residential college. You can see from the body of evidence you made me present to be able to contact my son at his new residential college that I have been becoming increasingly more distressed as you piled on the abuse – turned the screw – adding defamation and libel to torment and terror. The bottom line is that you have forced me to suffer a prolonged, serious and totally unnecessary period of mental distress and loss of earnings spanning many months as you carried out your hate campaign against James’s family and against James by effectively leaving no stone unturned to cruelly abuse his incapacity to “airbrush” his loved ones out of his life and forced me to put in ever more effort to clear my name from your lies, libel and defamation and to prove I was indeed James’s father and have a fantastic loving relationship with him and to be able to see my totally defenceless and incapacitated son at his new residential college.
5 What steps your solicitor intends to take to prevent you from offending, abusing our son’s incapacity , telling lies, defaming and libling James’s father and tormenting and terrorising James’s family again?
I’m very very contactable. Your solicitor can email me at simon@foden.net and or call me on 0121 207 0010.
I look forward to making contact with your solicitor – I have a lot to tell him / her and I have a substantial body of evidence for him / her to plough through.
The legitimate exposure of your offences under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, the Disability Discriminations laws, your continued abuse of a seriously disabled young adult’s incapacity, the libellous defamatory lies you fed the professionals involved in preparing our son for his placement at Queen Alexandra College in Birmingham – the exposure will continue to an ever wider audience until your solicitor advises you end end your malicious and hateful campaign of terror against a severely disabled and incapacitated young adult’s family.
Yours sincerely
Simon Foden
Monica
Stop this abuse now and stop goading QAC and Social Services to break the law
The additional day will be nice but there are no no go areas for James brothers – you cannot exclude them from James’s residence – as explained the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Disability Discrimination laws forbid it. As explained in my last email for the 5 weeks that James brothers are in town the living skills curriculum takes a lower priority than showing off his place to his brothers which all non incapacitated people do and you must comply with the Acts and not abuse James by taking advantage of his incapacity to deprive him of his liberty to practice his living skills in the presence of his brothers and receive his loved ones as his guests in his own place for a very very short period of time. Just twice a week for 5 weeks an hour will be sufficient.
An hour will be sufficient
An hour will be sufficient
Monica – did you get that — AN HOUR WILL BE SUFFICIENT JUST 2X A WEEK JUST 5 WEEKS and James family won’t be around for another year so that my severely incapacitated son can seize his opportunity granted him by the metal Capacity Act 2005 and the Disability Discrimination laws to stop you from depriving him of his liberty to maintain his loving bonds with his brothers in a dignified manner, in his own place of residence, something they can talk about in years to come, something that his non incapacitated peers can do without relying on a third party to make a call for them. Sasha will never forget seeing his brother in his own place and the awe that inspires. Its like when your first teenage peer gets a car and you feel the awe of their independence when they take you out in it or when you visit your first peer to get their own place. Sasha will never forget this and James will be proud to show him round.
Its not really an hour its only 50 minutes because we normally see him for 10 minutes on Skype.
Judging by the manner in which you misrepresented the facts to social services and QAC judging by their shock that James has a loving paternal family who jointly raised him it seems exclusivity and legal compliance was the last thing on your mind. The main reason James brothers were appointed contacts at QAC by the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Disability Discrimination laws was because you went out of your way to take advantage of James incapacity to abuse a severely incapacitated and vulnerable young adult by airbrushing his brothers one of whom grew up with James – out of his life. This was an act of intolerable abuse against a person as vulnerable and incapacitated as James. What chance did James have of getting back in touch with his family? If it wasn’t for my actions in requesting a Health and Safety check for him he may never have seen his brothers ever again.
Please grow up and accept that his living skills can take place as well as him being able to touch base with his family at his residence for a very short time – see above. When I was a Uni every single student had their liberty to show off their place and receive visits in their place of their loved ones. There were no third parties around saying you cant do that! Nobody said all your after lesson time should be spent learning skills! The bottom line is that James’s severe vulnerability means that his whole life has been controlled, choreographed and spent doing what others have told him he can and can’t do and nobody who read James brain scan reports and watched his videos with his brothers of whom he has a very very short window of opportunity to exercise his rights under the Acts with would say he should be deprived of this brief opportunity because you want to break the law and deprive him of his liberty to do.
What is all this either or? What ever happened to inclusivity and compliance with the law so that QAC don’t have to face a SENDIST Tribunal and bad publicity because you just will not stop goading them to break the law?
What is wrong with legal compliance? What is wrong with playing by the rules?
All you have achieved with your tirade of abuse against James and his family is get us appointed by the Mental Capacity Act 2005 as named contacts at QAC and at whatever other place he resides at.
I and James brothers have been appointed named contacts by the authority of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to stop you abusing him by taking advantage of his severe vulnerability and incapacity to deprive him of liberty and put him at a disadvantage to his non incapacitated peers – disability discrimination.
James will be more set back if you keep abusing him and trying to deprive him of his legal rights which I will see are adhered to for him.
Now please grow up and be a little bit more inclusive and broad minded and pragmatic.
We can either bring James brothers at a time of out choosing for some very short visits or we can agree some times that you think are better than others for short visits so James can enjoy his liberty to can show off his new place to his brothers using our powers under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to ensure that James rights are adhered to or we can agree some times you think may be more suitable than others.
Simon
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Simon Foden <simon@foden.net>
Date: 18 December 2014 at 22:48
Subject: Re: Fw: Monica Ryder’s offences under the Mental Capacity Act 2005
To: Monica Ryder <monica.ryder@btinternet.com>, jessex <jessex@solihull.gov.uk>, Beverley Jessop <bjessop@qac.ac.uk>, ssadultcare.review@solihull.gov.uk, “Ivko, Katy (Adult Social Care – Solihull MBC)” <katyivko@solihull.gov.uk>, s502amordey <s502amordey@merstone.solihull.sch.uk>
Monica
I have no problems with the police – don’t forget its you that is the offender and slanderer and I who is the victim.
You are the one who has been slanderous and the more you deprive James of his liberty the more compensation I will be claiming from you. I urge you to apologise to me and end this 3 month nightmare you unilaterally started before it starts to cost you money. For 3 months you have terrorised James family and it is high time you are held to account for it and letting you off with an apology is doing you a big favour. If you deprive James of his liberty to see his loved ones this weekend you will be committing a further offence under the he Mental Capacity Act 2005 and I will be claiming the £3000 cost of the trip to bring James’s family to see him and I will also be claiming for your libellous defamatory remarks that I am unfit to visit my son in his place of residence and that will be much more than £3000. I’ll be looking at the tens of thousands. And then there is the mental stress I suffered as you have bent over backwards and left no stone unturned to abuse James under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and to defame and belittle his loving father as being unfit to see him in his place of residence. This is the compensation I’m owed for the terror I suffered while you was abusing James’s incapacity to deprive him of his loved ones who cared for him until his teenage years and beyond.
Its about time you learned the old English adage: “People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones”!
Now, for the last time please apologise for terrorising James family during the last three months so you can save money, I can have peace of mind that you are not going to offend again under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and abuse my son’s incapacity to deprive him of his loved ones. I urge you to show common sense and work with James family to help his incapacity not abuse his incapacity to terrorise his family as you have been doing since you unilaterally broke off communication an commenced to offend under the mental capacity act 2005.
See sense
Apologise
Move on
This is the cheapest solution and the most beneficial solution for James.
I hope that helps
Simon
On 18 Dec 2014 15:04, “Monica Ryder” <monica.ryder@btinternet.com> wrote:
Simon further to this email you can forget seeing James at the weekend or next week. I’ve had enough of your slanderous accusations and i’m taking legal advice. if you come to the house i will call the police so don’t bother.
—– Forwarded Message —–
From: Simon Foden <simon@foden.net>
To: jessex <jessex@solihull.gov.uk>; ‘Monica Ryder’ <monica.ryder@btinternet.com>; Beverley Jessop <bjessop@qac.ac.uk>; “Ivko, Katy (Adult Social Care – Solihull MBC)” <katyivko@solihull.gov.uk>; ssadultcare.review@solihull.gov.uk; s502amordey <s502amordey@merstone.solihull.sch.uk>
Sent: Thursday, 18 December 2014, 12:06
Subject: Monica Ryder’s offences under the Mental Capacity Act 2005
Hi Jeannette
This email is strictly confidential and is not to be distributed beyond the ccd recipients James’s last school current collage. solihull inclusion and access social services and Monica.
This email summarizes Monica’s offences that she recently committed under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 as she abused a severely incapacitated and very vulnerable young adult by abusing his incapacity to airbrush his loving and growing paternal family of father, 2 brothers and uncle a step mom and a sister due to be born in April completely out of his life and deprive him of his liberty to see his family as guests at his place of residence in the same manner his non incapacitated student peers can do at their hall of residence when away at uni. There Monica discriminated against James due to his disability as well as committed a serious offence against a vulnerable young adult under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
Since my parents died 3 years ago Monica and I maintained a business like relationship for James’s sake and we maintained fortnightly Skype contact until Monica suddenly, without reason and completely unilaterally tapered off Skype contact before ending it all together.
She changed her phone number and made herself completely incommunicado. I was forced to contact social services for an urgent health and safety report on James to find out were he was and if indeed he was ok.
Katy the social worker appeared shocked that James had a loving and growing paternal family who had cared for him all his life. She told me that James was at QAC and that I cannot contact him there because Monica had forbidden it and James was nolonger a child ending paternal responsibility. To Katy’s credit she did tell me to take legal advice and the barrister who advised me told me that Monica was abusing a severely incapacitated and very vulnerable young adult by abusing his incapacity to airbrush his loving and growing paternal family of father, 2 brothers and uncle a step mom and a sister due to be born in April completely out of his life and deprive him of his liberty to see his family as guests at his place of residence in the same manner his non incapacitated student peers can do at their hall of residence when away at uni.
Katy later produced a but she covered up my reports of abuse. However, my reply to the report that detailed Monicas abuse against James was logged and I was sent a password protected secure email to confirm it was logged in order to prevent a negligence claim against social services.
Both Social Services and QAC were completely shocked at my arrival on the scene and I was initially treated as an emposter poking my nose into other peoples business. This can only have been because Monica told them a pack of lies about me as she totally misrepresented the facts to them.
I have 3 months of documentary evidence of Monicas abuse of my incapacitated son as she left him in a strange place totally out of reach of his family and poor /James must have been terrified his family and brothers had abandoned him. This was also a terrifying experience for James family as we had to fight yo prove we were indeed his family.
Monica also went on to defame and slur my good reputation as James father who had always protected James when he was in trouble claiming I was not a fit person to see my son at his residence. This is very rich coming from a known offender (to social services and QAC) under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and a known liar who had furnished both social services and QAC with a pack of lies as she misrepresented the facts to them.
However, on this occasion I don’t believe its in James’s interest to prosecute Monica for her offences under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and I also won’t be seeking damages for her defamatory remarks she has slurred me with to QAC and social services. This time only.
Therefore. As I’ve proved beyond all reasonable doubt and way past the balance of probability that Monica is an unfit person to manage single handedly James’s next institution al transition please ensue I’m kept in the loop at every single stage. Im in England two months every year and in Thailand I have a Birmingham phone number: 0121 270 0010 and 0121 711 4411 and I have a UK address: 125 Queen Street Sheffield S1 2DU where all my correspondence is immediately emailed to me.
James’s regular Skype contact is restored and his contact with his family and brothers and uncle is now restored. I thank QAC for this and I sympathise with them for having to deal with Monica’s lies and abuse against James under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
I trust this is satisfactory.
I do seek an apology from Monica for the terror of the last 3 months as she lied and offended.
Kind regards
Simon
<simon@foden.net>
to kmillard
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Simon Foden <simon@foden.net>
Date: 22 December 2014 at 20:02
Subject: Fwd: Seeing James
To: jessex <jessex@solihull.gov.uk>, Beverley Jessop <bjessop@qac.ac.uk>, ssadultcare.review@solihull.gov.uk, “Ivko, Katy (Adult Social Care – Solihull MBC)” <katyivko@solihull.gov.uk>, s502amordey <s502amordey@merstone.solihull.sch.uk>
Dear Jeannette
A more diplomatic version has been sent to Monica see below. Monica is excluded from this full version which says the same thing in more detail in order to get her abuse (as previously detailed) of James’s and his family stopped once and for all.
Please see below my gentle reply below to yet another of Monica’s emails of aggression as she clutches at straws to dig out petty excuse after petty excuse as to why to place obstacles in the way of James enjoying his two full days a fortnight contact with his loving family whom he has grew up with and who grew up with him. Yet again she is forcing me to provide evidence as to why my incapacitated and severely vulnerable and disabled son loves his family so much and enjoys his time with them so much as she continues her aggressive 3 month campaign of terror, libel and abuse against James and his family.
She carried out her threat to abuse James’s incapacity to deprive him of his liberty to enjoy a fantastic time with his loving family. She knows full well that James doesn’t have the mental capacity to understand the consequences of of vetoing such a fantastic opportunity to have a great time with his brothers who he loves so much. However, on Sunday Monica complied with her obligations under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and James had a lovely time at the Think Tank with 10 year old Sasha showing James the experiments. James liked the one where the ball appears to float over the water fountain. Dominic brought James to meet his family and he behaved correctly and business like just how it should be and again when he collected James from the station later. Monica has also stated that she intends to comply with her obligation to facilitate James’s day out with his family on Tuesday and James will have a fantastic time with Baby Si but he will sadly miss out on Sasha because Sasha’s family time was Saturday not Tuesday therefore James has still suffered a significant deprivation at Monica’s hands.
Bev said on Thursday that I don’t need to prove how much James loves his father and brothers as that is already taken for granted however if this is true then why does it feel that Monica is still leaving no stone unturned in her relentless campaign to airbrush my disabled sons’ family out of his life i.e relentlessly continuing to abuse James defenceless incapacity under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 .
Lets look at the facts:
James’s defenceless incapacity is derived from his totally malformed brain due to his Neuronal Migration disorder and Microcephaly (small brain). This has left James with a life sentence of having the reasoning skills of a 2 to 4 year old. These are the same reasoning skills James had 10 years ago and will be the same reasoning skills James will have in 10, 20 and 30 years time because, as you are all to aware, his problems are physical not mental, i.e. if he didn’t have a totally malformed and small brain he would not have any mental capacity problems and he would, indeed be perfectly normal in his development and reasoning skills but as his brain is not normal he’s trapped with the reasoning skills of a two to four year old for the rest of his life.
Just in case nobody believes me that James’s brain (the cause of his incapacity) is malformed then I enclose James Neurologist report and the interpretation of his brain scans (see attachment named James Fodens forms for simon foden). Now, everybody can see, once and for all that even when James says he does not want to see his father, or he says he does not want to see his brothers that he does NOT have the capacity to understand the consequences of what he has said in as much as he would NOT understand he would he would be depriving himself of a fantastic time with his beloved Baby Si who James has renamed Baby Kie and his brother Sasha who James watched grow up from a baby and who when he was two years old provided powerful evidence, based on his own development, that helped James psychologists to tone down their colourful reports that were way out in terms of where James was at in his development. Now James has baby Si to help his psychologists and social workers to stay on the right track and accurately portray James totally incapacitated reasoning skills. Next year James will have his sister to help his professionals keep on the right tract in terms of his development.
Therefore, as I’ve proven beyond all reasonable doubt that James does not have the capacity to understand the consequences of vetoing his opportunities to spend his modest twice a week every fortnight just two months of the year to have a fantastic time with his loving family who raised him from a baby, understand all his problems some of who grew up with him and who will be his future carers / care coordinators when his parents are no longer around.
If past experience is anything to go by Monica will goad QAC teaching staff to say that James is unsettled or less well behaved after his weekend with his family. This is exactly what transpired when James was at Reynalds Cross school and you already have 3 months worth of documentary evidence of how Monica has relentlessly goaded QAC to aid and abet her in abusing James’s incapacity to airbrush his loved ones out of his life. As noted earlier QAC didn’t take up Monic’s bait and instead behaved comply professionally and ensured all James’s rights under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were adhered to.
Therefore, I’ve proven beyond all reasonable doubt that James does NOT have the mental capacity to veto his not too frequent opportunities to have a great time and build up his relationships with his growing family of past and future carers and ensure that Sasha, baby Si and his sister due in April will always have a close relationship with him to ensure they will be able to visit him, show him his nephews and nieces, and even coordinate his care when his parents are nolonger around.
Gentle note of guidance to all of the professionals involved in James’s care.
Please carry out your duties well to protect James from Monica’s relentless campaign to abuse him under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 by spinning never ending lies balderdash and misinterpretations of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 so that she can deprive James of his liberty to maintain easy and regular contact with his loving and growing family and all the disadvantages that would have for him for the rest of his life.
In view of the compelling evidence I’ve presented you all with it would be very unwise for any professional involved in James’s care to even make the slightest suggestion that James has the mental capacity to understand the consequences of vetoing his opportunities to have a fantastic time with his loving family without being ridiculed by their peers in their respective professional association and possibly even being debarred or liable to pay damages for professional negligence to a severely vulnerable and incapacitated young adult. I noticed that there was such a ridiculous suggestion made in James’s dubious social worker report but it was actually made by Monica as part of her relentless campaign to terrorise James’s family rather than the social worker who obviously thought better of saying that ridiculous statement herself although the balance of probability is that she probably would have goaded the social worker to make such a ridiculous statement and then made it herself when the social worker refused. Although there was a lot missing from Katy’s report I understand how much pressure she must have been under with Monica relentlessly goading her to aid and her abet her abuse under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and its a credit to Katy that she didn’t say those words herself and I’m in her debt for telling me to get legal advice – advice which has ended Monica’s unilateral and aggressive 3 month rain of terror over James and his family.
Even the the Prime Minister has stated the importance of regular and rich paternal contact for people with child like capacity and I would say this is even more important for incapacitated young adults than it is children 2 to 4 years old who share James’s mental capacity.
Therefore, to all James’s professionals, in view of Monica’s 3 month campaign to abuse the incapacity of my son under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 by leaving no stone unturned in her relentless acts of aggression and ongoing campaign to airbrush this defenceless young adult’s loving and growing family from his life by misrepresenting the facts to Inclusion and Access, QAC,and James social workers and then libelling his father as unfit to visit his incapacitated son at his new residential college something (all non incapacitated students can enjoy parent visits) and relentlessly goading social workers and QAC to aid and abet her in abusing James’s incapacity to airbrush James’s growing and loving family from his life, therefore, in view of all the evidence I respectfully request you please take with a pinch of salt anything Monica Ryder says about James Arthur Henry Foden and his family because she has such a poor reputation for telling the truth and the whole truth and you can clearly see that she only has herself to blame for this.
Kind regards
Simon Foden
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Simon Foden <simon@foden.net>
Date: 20 December 2014 at 10:18
Subject: Re: Seeing James
To: Monica Ryder <monica.ryder@btinternet.com>
This is a gentle informative and conciliatory email designed to shed light on what went wrong in the weeks prior to James’s fantastic placement at QAC and a gentle request request that you reinvoke the business like relationship you maintained with me until that time which was a civil relationship that kept James in regular Skype contact with his loving and growing paternal family that he grew up with and who grew up with him. James absolutely adores baby Si and has even renamed him baby Kie
See video below:
There was nothing abusive about reporting, in a civil and business like manner to a restricted number of professionals involved in James care how, for whatever reason you had taken advantage of his incapacity to distance him from his loved ones putting him at a disadvantage to his non defenceless non incapacitated peers. This contravened 2 laws: the disability discrimination laws and the Mental Capacity Act 2005. It was Katy the social worker who told me to get legal advice and it was the above that was revealed by the advice.
I don’t doubt that Janes can issue opinions on what he wants to do next and if you ask him if he wants to see Sasha he will say probably 100% of the time. However, this does not mean he does not want to see Sasha because he does not have the capacity to understand the “consequences” of the decision he made would mean he would missing out on a fantastic time with a brother he loves and watched grow up from a baby. This is the beauty of the mental Capacity Act 2005. It protects severely incapacitated people not only from other people but from themselves to!
I cherish the business like relationship we had until 3 months ago and I would be grateful if this could be restored. I’m even prepared to forget the terror of the last 3 months and move in because James deserves nothing less.
I look forward to meeting James with Dominic tomorrow at the time you mentioned and its my intention to be civil and business like and I expect Dominic to reciprocate.
Simon
Simon
I view your recent emails as abusive and inaccurate however I have no intention of entering into a dialogue with you about them. I am not prepared to tolerate abusive messages from you.
In future I am only prepared to deal with you via email or text messages. If any message that you send to me or to other people about me contains abusive remarks, then I will ignore the contents of the whole message and not respond to that message. That includes any response to this message.
With regard to tomorrow, we have asked James what he would like to do. He has made it quite clear that he does not want to see you tomorrow. We have asked him about Sunday. He is happy to see you Sunday.
I do not wish to see you face to face as I feel this will be counterproductive. The arrangements for Sunday are therefore as follows:
- Dominic will bring James to Solihull Station. He will arrive at approximately 11:00. He will wait till 11:15. If you have not arrived by then, he will leave with James.
- Please ensure James is back by 5:30 pm at the latest. If you text your arrival time to me, Dominic will come and collect James from Solihull Station.
If your response to this message is abusive, I will ignore the message and assume that you do not wish to see James on Sunday. If I do not receive a civil response to this message, I will assume that you do not wish to see James on Sunday.
Providing all is well on Sunday, we can talk about Tuesday.
Monica
<simon@foden.net>
8 May
to kmillard
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Simon Foden <simon@foden.net>
Date: 18 December 2014 at 19:06
Subject: Monica Ryder’s offences under the Mental Capacity Act 2005
To: jessex <jessex@solihull.gov.uk>, Monica Ryder <monica.ryder@btinternet.com>, Beverley Jessop <bjessop@qac.ac.uk>, “Ivko, Katy (Adult Social Care – Solihull MBC)” <katyivko@solihull.gov.uk>, ssadultcare.review@solihull.gov.uk, s502amordey <s502amordey@merstone.solihull.sch.uk>
Hi Jeannette
This email is strictly confidential and is not to be distributed beyond the ccd recipients James’s last school current collage. solihull inclusion and access social services and Monica.
This email summarizes Monica’s offences that she recently committed under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 as she abused a severely incapacitated and very vulnerable young adult by abusing his incapacity to airbrush his loving and growing paternal family of father, 2 brothers and uncle a step mom and a sister due to be born in April completely out of his life and deprive him of his liberty to see his family as guests at his place of residence in the same manner his non incapacitated student peers can do at their hall of residence when away at uni. There Monica discriminated against James due to his disability as well as committed a serious offence against a vulnerable young adult under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
Since my parents died 3 years ago Monica and I maintained a business like relationship for James’s sake and we maintained fortnightly Skype contact until Monica suddenly, without reason and completely unilaterally tapered off Skype contact before ending it all together.
She changed her phone number and made herself completely incommunicado. I was forced to contact social services for an urgent health and safety report on James to find out were he was and if indeed he was ok.
Katy the social worker appeared shocked that James had a loving and growing paternal family who had cared for him all his life. She told me that James was at QAC and that I cannot contact him there because Monica had forbidden it and James was nolonger a child ending paternal responsibility. To Katy’s credit she did tell me to take legal advice and the barrister who advised me told me that Monica was abusing a severely incapacitated and very vulnerable young adult by abusing his incapacity to airbrush his loving and growing paternal family of father, 2 brothers and uncle a step mom and a sister due to be born in April completely out of his life and deprive him of his liberty to see his family as guests at his place of residence in the same manner his non incapacitated student peers can do at their hall of residence when away at uni.
Katy later produced a but she covered up my reports of abuse. However, my reply to the report that detailed Monicas abuse against James was logged and I was sent a password protected secure email to confirm it was logged in order to prevent a negligence claim against social services.
Both Social Services and QAC were completely shocked at my arrival on the scene and I was initially treated as an emposter poking my nose into other peoples business. This can only have been because Monica told them a pack of lies about me as she totally misrepresented the facts to them.
I have 3 months of documentary evidence of Monicas abuse of my incapacitated son as she left him in a strange place totally out of reach of his family and poor /James must have been terrified his family and brothers had abandoned him. This was also a terrifying experience for James family as we had to fight yo prove we were indeed his family.
Monica also went on to defame and slur my good reputation as James father who had always protected James when he was in trouble claiming I was not a fit person to see my son at his residence. This is very rich coming from a known offender (to social services and QAC) under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and a known liar who had furnished both social services and QAC with a pack of lies as she misrepresented the facts to them.
However, on this occasion I don’t believe its in James’s interest to prosecute Monica for her offences under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and I also won’t be seeking damages for her defamatory remarks she has slurred me with to QAC and social services. This time only.
Therefore. As I’ve proved beyond all reasonable doubt and way past the balance of probability that Monica is an unfit person to manage single handedly James’s next institution al transition please ensue I’m kept in the loop at every single stage. Im in England two months every year and in Thailand I have a Birmingham phone number: 0121 270 0010 and 0121 711 4411 and I have a UK address: 125 Queen Street Sheffield S1 2DU where all my correspondence is immediately emailed to me.
James’s regular Skype contact is restored and his contact with his family and brothers and uncle is now restored. I thank QAC for this and I sympathise with them for having to deal with Monica’s lies and abuse against James under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
I trust this is satisfactory.
I do seek an apology from Monica for the terror of the last 3 months as she lied and offended.
Kind regards
Simon Foden <simon@foden.net>
8 May
to kmillard
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Simon Foden <simon@foden.net>
Date: 31 October 2014 at 21:11
Subject: Fwd: My son’s report
To: “Ivko, Katy (Adult Social Care – Solihull MBC)” <katyivko@solihull.gov.uk>, Beverley Jessop <bjessop@qac.ac.uk>, Andy Dennehy <adennehy@qac.ac.uk>
Hi Katy
Thank you for your report. I agree with the broad thrust of it that James is both better off at QAC than at Monica’s house with a plethora of outsourced professional carers and that he has settled in well at QAC.
I was never in doubt about that because my son has been raised from birth to 13 years old at his father’s and grandparents’ homes every weekday until bed time 7 pm and every other weekend and every single Monday all night. Post 13 Monica participated in daytime care via hiring professional carers. James continued to spend every other weekend with his paternal family until April 2012 which was 4 months after his grandparents died when I returned to my home abroad.
James was always flexible and if anything enjoyed his different shared carers. If he could have chosen himself I don’t think he would have chosen anything different than shared care. This is why I have no doubt about how much he loves his time at QAC.
Monica is clearly on the defensive regarding how she has abused James by lying to social services and QAC about James’s close family bonds – family who never outsourced him – she is clearly worried about how the Mental Capacity Act protects James from her abuse – taking advantage of his incapacity to deprive him of his liberty to receive his loved one (the ones who never outsourced him) at his place of residence for short visits and some days out.
She is so on the defensive that a significant part of the report that she contributed to is about one way she can attempt to get out of her obligations where the Act states that if incapacitated people have some ability to express a preference then that should be taken into consideration. For example should somebody say to James do you want to see your brothers today, James will instinctively say no because he wouldn’t understand such a complex sentence. Even if he did understand such a complex sentence and he still said no then the Mental Capacity Act 2005 would step in to protect him because he clearly does not have the capacity to understand the implications of saying no in that he would be denying himself time to spend with his loved ones who raised him from a baby and his brother Sasha who grew up with James. He certainly doesn’t have the capacity to understand that when his parents are no longer around all he will have left will be brother Sasha, brother Sirus and his new sibling due in April hence the importance to him of his precious time developing his bonds with his brothers.
I have the results from James’s brain scans that prove beyond all doubt that James does not have the capacity to answer the question do you want to see your brothers plus I have 18 years of video and photographic evidence of how much James loves his family therefore Monica’s attempts to abuse James by circumventing the Mental Capacity Act 2005 based on a preference that James may or may not express are simply futile.
It was Monica’s choice to abuse James by wilfully misleading both social services and QAC and probably the people who do the holiday care too about James close loving bonds with his paternal family who raised him from a baby and his bother Sasha who grew up with him and his new brother Sirus who James met last year and her relentless attempts to abuse James by goading QAC to breach the Mental Capacity Act deprive James’s of his liberty to receive his loved ones as guests for short visits and to take him for days out with his family. This abuse also contravenes the disability discrimination laws because by taking advantage of James’s severe vulnerability and lack of capacity to make decisions for him that are against his best interests and depriving him of his liberty she is also discriminating against him because of his disability because she is putting him at a grave disadvantage to his non incapacitated peers who can simply allow their family to visit them without let or hindrance of third parties.
Therefore, for all of Monica’s abuse of James’s grave incapacity and vulnerability, all she has achieved is to get James’s father and brothers appointed as named contacts for James at QAC and at whatever other address / institution James resides at by the authority of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 so that Monica’s obligations are fully complied with and James’s rights under the Act are fully adhered to.
This time next week James’s family will be in Birmingham and we look forward to out first short visit to see James at QAC and compliance with the Mental Capacity Act.
Kind regards
Simon
PS
Where you note in your report that Monica is the so called “carer” should that not be “Care Coordinator” as she has spent far more of James’s life coordinating his care that actually providing care herself and its clear to readers of your report that nothing has changed 🙂
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Simon Foden <simon@foden.net>
Date: 24 October 2014 18:17
Subject: Re: My son’s report
To: “Ivko, Katy (Adult Social Care – Solihull MBC)” <katyivko@solihull.gov.uk>, Beverley Jessop <bjessop@qac.ac.uk>, Andy Dennehy <adennehy@qac.ac.uk>
Hi Katy
James has always been very flexible with who when and where he’s cared for. He was raised in two homes all his life and this gradually increased to 3 with Ivy Lodge. We only brought social services in in the first place to help when Reynalds cross school discriminated against James because of his disability according to the SENDIST Tribunal. There were never any issues with James daytime care. When my mom sadly contracted cancer 6 years ago Monica took over James’s weekday care and his former social worker, Melody Cobb reassured us that the professional carers Monica appointed for James’s weekday care were properly trained for James seizures and medication to bring him out of his seizures. Melody said they were ok and that was fine by James family.
There were never any other issues until last month when Monica subjected James and his family to a tirade of abuse by tapering off his Skype contact, then going incommunicado then misleading social services and QAC and breaching the Mental Capacity Act and the Disability Discrimination laws and depriving him of his liberty to receive his loved ones for short visits at his place of residence and days out just as his non incapacitated peers enjoy the freedom to do.
It is very important that if ever Monica contacts the Court of protection for any deputyships (social services will be told of this) for James I must be informed because the deputyship would have no legal status if James’s family were not at the hearing.
Now that Monica has an established track record of misleading and misrepresenting the facts to Social Services and James’s colleges please copy me in (and any new social worker) with all James’s reports and any views Monica passes to Social Services so that she is never again given so much freedom to mislead Social Services, QAC and any other institution my son may attend or reside at. Lessons must be learned and Monica must never be allowed to subject James and his family to such a tirade of abuse and deception ever again.
Now that James’s paternal family and brothers are named contacts for James at QAC by the authority of clause 16.2 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 we do not anticipate any problems when his brothers visit James for occasional short visits and some days out in November and December during this year’s annual trip to visit James and Sasha and bring all the kids together so they can maintain their loving fraternal bonds and friendships.
Kind regards
Simon
On 24 October 2014 16:55, Ivko, Katy (Adult Social Care – Solihull MBC) <katyivko@solihull.gov.uk> wrote:
Hi Simon,
Thank you for your emails and for your invitation to meet with yourself and James’s family. I do not think a meeting is necessary as I am already aware that you are James’s family and that you have been having regular contact with him while he is at QAC. I have incorporated the views you sent me on Tuesday into James’s review and I will post a copy to you once this has been completed. Once I have posted out James’s review I will no longer be his allocated social worker as he seems happy and settled at QAC. If you would like to speak to a social worker in the future regarding James you can call 0121 704 8007 and ask to speak to the duty social worker.
Kind regards,
Katy
Katy Ivko
Social worker
South Support Planning Team
3 The Green
Shirley
Solihull
B90 4LA
0121 704 8007 etx 3189
Work mobile: 07795450849
From: Simon Foden [mailto:simon@foden.net]
Sent: 24 October 2014 10:36
To: Ivko, Katy (Adult Social Care – Solihull MBC); Beverley Jessop; Andy Dennehy
Subject: Fwd: My son’s report
Morning Katy
It has been exposed how Monica has abused a severely incapacitated and vulnerable young person by telling you a pack of lies about his growing family of past and future carers (information derived from the tone and content of your initial communication and Monica’s recent emails where she tried and failed to defend her abuse.
Now it has been exposed please under Data Protection Act please give me a copy of all of the views she has given you about James and his family so that you and I can work together to remove Monica’s lies from your records and replace them with accurate and truthful information and stop her in her tracks from ever abusing a severely incapacitated and vulnerable young man by spinning lies and balderdash to mislead social workers, residences and schools as part of her plot to deprive him of his liberty under the Mental Capacity Act and Disability Discrimination laws ever again.
We must work together to ensure that no decisions are taken for James that are not in his best interests and he is never, ever, I repeat – never ever deprived of his liberty to receive his loved ones as guests for short visits and to take him out for family days out just as his non incapacitated peers can do. The Whole point of the Mental Capacity Act is to prevent people like Monica abusing people like James and to ensure James as the same liberties and protection as his none incapacitated peers.
James family will be in Birmingham from 6th November and we would like to meet up with you so that you can meet Dad step Mom Cherma, brother Sasha and brother Sirus so that you can see for yourself that we are just a normal happy family who Monica left James with from birth and, barring the last couple of years since my parents died have taken care of James all his life. You can see for yourself that everything she has told you was a very very sweet sound pack of lies but a pack of lies all the same.
Please get your records ready so that we can get them corrected. Don’t let Monica trick you into covering up any of the lies she has told you as we need to keep them on the record in order to ensure she can never abuse James like this again and in future all of James rights are adhered to and James’s family are never again subjected to the terror, the distress and the pain of Monica’s lies and abuse ever again.
We look forward to meeting you.
Kind regards
Simon
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Simon Foden <simon@foden.net>
Date: 20 October 2014 17:55
Subject: Fwd: My son’s report
To: “Ivko, Katy (Adult Social Care – Solihull MBC)” <katyivko@solihull.gov.uk>, Beverley Jessop <bjessop@qac.ac.uk>, Andy Dennehy <adennehy@qac.ac.uk>
Correction of bullet point 12 – it should read like this:
Monica can’t hide behind the social worker now its been exposed that Monica has wilfully misled the social worker in the same way she wilfully misled QAC on James’s application form. The social worker is not able to cover up the evidence because its easy to bring it into the public domain, therefore full compliance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 for Monica and all involved with my helplessly incapacitated son’s care is the only way forward.
Please don’t ignore this email and please understand that the stakes are very very high here and in view of the distressing nightmare Monica has subjected James family to over the last couple of months this issue will not go away until James’s rights under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 for his family to have the right, to be named contacts at whatever residence James is residing at at the time including QAC presently in order to prevent Monica from abusing James again by airbrushing his loved ones out of his life with untruthful application forms and deprivation of his rights to have the same liberty as his non helplessly incapacitated peers to receive his loved ones as guests at his place of residence for short visits and some days out.
Kind regards
Simon
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Simon Foden <simon@foden.net>
Date: 20 October 2014 17:27
Subject: Re: My son’s report
To: “Ivko, Katy (Adult Social Care – Solihull MBC)” <katyivko@solihull.gov.uk>, Beverley Jessop <bjessop@qac.ac.uk>, Andy Dennehy <adennehy@qac.ac.uk>
Morning Katy
“I will not be including information about contact arrangements as this is for yourself and Monica to arrange”.
Re your assertion above. How can James’s family arrange contact arrangements for James to see his loved ones for brief visits at his place of residence, something that all non incapacitated people are at liberty to do, when Monica keeps going incommunicado? You know she tapered off James’s Skype contact in the 3 months prior to James taking his place at QAC whilst she was busily abusing James by airbrushing his loved ones out of his life in her negligent and false application form for QAC.
At my father’s funeral she put her arms around me to comfort me while I was crying (which was shocking as she’d only ever shown dislike towards me she she left when James was 4 years old) and said she would never try to stop James’s family from seeing James. It is clear now that this was just more of her sweet talking sweet smiled manipulative lies just to make it even more painful when when her scheming plot to abuse a severely vulnerable and helpless young adult by depriving him of his liberty to receive his family at his place of residence came to fruition. She planned this for a long long time!
1 How can James’s family arrange contact arrangements for James to see his loved ones for brief visits at his place of residence, something that all non incapacitated people are at liberty to do, when Monica keeps going incommunicado? She went incommunicado when she set up her campaign of abuse against a defenceless young adult neglecting to tell his residential college about his family and now she has gone incommunicado again because James’s family don”t and will never accept Monica’s point of view that she is above the Mental capacity Act 2005 and therefore is free to make abusive decisions about this incapacitated young individual like false information on his application form and depriving him of his liberty to receive his loved ones as gusts at his place of residence as James’s non incapacitated 19 year old peers can.
2 Is it not your job to prevent Monica from abusing James by her scheming attempts to airbrush James’s family out of his life and reckless non compliance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
3 Please don’t tell me to discuss arrangements with Monica because you are already aware that she has made herself incommunicado again.
4 Please don’t tell me to get legal advice because as you know, the legal advice from my barrister is that Monica is in breach of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 by depriving James of his liberty to have free access to his family for short visits and occasional days out and to ensure that his bonds with his brothers who will one day be the only family he has left remain strong. If James was not so helplessly incapacitated he would enjoy free access to receive his loved ones for short visits and occasional days out. The only reason James is currently deprived of this is because Monica is in breach of the Act and that she didn’t tell the whole truth on James’s application and she has misled James’s social worker.
5 Please don’t cover up the mountain of evidence you are in possession of that Monica is abusing James’s helpless incapacity by depriving James of his liberty and making bad decisions for him like airbrushing his past and future support network out of his life.
6 James’s family had a partial agreement in place with Beverly at QAC but since then Monica made a brief comeback from her initial incommunicado (the one where she was abusing James by setting up the airbrushing of his family out of his life leading to embarrassing shock at QAC that James had a lifelong and growing family support network knowing that James is to helpless and incapacitated to do anything about it) when she made a brief defence of why she believes she has the right to abuse James with her pretty sweet talking bullet points such as his 3 siblings have two different mothers. Of course these feeble excuses were rejected by James’s loved ones and because we reject the right of Monica to take advantage of James’s helpless incapacity to break the metal Capacity Act 2005 she has made herself incommunicado.
7 As, in view of all the mountain of evidence that Monica has taken advantage of James’s helpless incapacity to further her apparent hate campaign against James’s family, the family she left James with for most of his life – it is now clear that when she was cuddling me at my dad’s funeral she was already plotting this hate attack on James’s growing family – I put it to Monica that what she was scheming and plotting was something like this: “when James is at residential college and I don’t need James’s family any more to help,me with James’s care – I will show them how much I hate them by stopping James from seeing his family by spinning some sweet sounding balderdash, balderdash as sweet as my smile and lay it out in pretty bullet points and James’s social worker will get taken in by it and she will cover up any protests from James’s loved ones and I don’t care if my scheming plot gets the social worker into trouble.”
8 Please don’t let Monica get you into trouble by tricking you into covering up the mountain of evidence that she has and is abusing James’s helpless incapacity by breaching the Mental Capacity Act 2005 in her negligent application form whilst she made herself incommunicado and her deprivation of James’s liberty to receive his loved ones for short visits at his current place of residence so that he has the same rights as a non disabled non incapacitated peer would have. Her behaviour, as my barrister pointed out – is totally contrary to the Act.
9 Beverly at QAC has so far not taken Monica’s bate as Monica relentlessly goads QAC to break the Mental Capacity Act. Beverly as so far resisted and the first two Skype contacts have taken place unhindered. There is one more due this evening.
Katy, please be as smart as Beverly because James is too wonderful and beautiful to be abused by Monica as above and it is your job to stop the abuse not aid and abet it by covering up the evidence from your reports.
10 There were no disagreements between Monica and I in recent times in the years after my parents died, Mom died in December 2011 and Dad died a month later that’s why it was puzzling why she was not answering the phone to set up James’s Skype contact in the run up to James’s place at QAC. All I have left are my 3 children with fourth due in April. This is why the stakes are so high and Monica must fail in her abuse of James’s helpless incapacity to airbush his past and future family support network from his life, James is helpless to stop her, her negligent application form for QAC and her reckless disregard for the Mental Capacity Act 2005 her wilful neglect to comply with the Act’s requirement that helpless incapacitated people like James have the same rights to receive their loved ones for short visits at their place of residence as their non incapacitated peers. The kids all love each other and James loves all his siblings and he knows there is a new baby due in April.
11 The only way to prevent Monica from ever stirring up such a hornets nest, such a distressing nightmare for James’s family again is for Social Services to recognise her ill deeds towards James and his family and the embarrassment she has caused at James’s college and simply tell Monica that James’s family have the right, under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to be named contacts at whatever residence James is residing at at the time including QAC presently.
12 Please don’t ignore this email and please understand that the stakes are very very high here and in view of the distressing nightmare Monica has subjected James to over the last couple of months this issue will not go away until James’s rights under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 for his family to have the right, to be named contacts at whatever residence James is residing at at the time including QAC presently in order to prevent Monica from abusing James again by airbrushing his loved ones out of his life with untruthful application forms and deprivation of his rights to have the same liberty to receive his loved ones as guests at his for short visits at his place of residence as his non helplessly incapacitated peers have.
Kind regards
Simon
On 15 October 2014 14:26, Ivko, Katy (Adult Social Care – Solihull MBC) <katyivko@solihull.gov.uk> wrote:
Hi Simon,
Thank you for your email. I will not be attaching the report in full as when I write up the review I will be incorporating the information provided by all parties, but I am pleased to hear that you feel James’s placement at QAC is working well. As the review will be focused on James and his care while at QAC, I will not be including information about contact arrangements as this is for yourself and Monica to arrange. If you could provide me with an address to send the completed report to, will of course post you a copy.
Kind regards,
Katy
Katy Ivko
Social worker
South Support Planning Team
3 The Green
Shirley
Solihull
B90 4LA
0121 704 8007 etx 3189
Work mobile: 07795450849
From: Simon Foden [mailto:simon@foden.net]
Sent: 14 October 2014 16:28
To: Ivko, Katy (Adult Social Care – Solihull MBC)
Subject: My son’s report
Hi Katy
Please confirm receipt of my contribution to James’s report which I would like attaching in full. Also, I would be grateful if you could send me a copy of the completed report.
Kind regards
Simon
**********************************************************************
DISCLAIMER:
‘This e-mail and files transmitted with it are confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and delete the message. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Solihull Council unless explicitly stated otherwise. Solihull Council may monitor the contents of e-mail sent and received via its network for the purposes of ensuring compliance with its policies and procedures. The contents of e-mails may have to be disclosed to third parties following a request under legislation such as the Data Protection Act 1998 or the Freedom of Information Act 2000.’
**********************************************************************
Simon Foden <simon@foden.net>
8 May
to kmillard
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Simon Foden <simon@foden.net>
Date: 24 October 2014 at 18:17
Subject: Re: My son’s report
To: “Ivko, Katy (Adult Social Care – Solihull MBC)” <katyivko@solihull.gov.uk>, Beverley Jessop <bjessop@qac.ac.uk>, Andy Dennehy <adennehy@qac.ac.uk>
Hi Katy
James has always been very flexible with who when and where he’s cared for. He was raised in two homes all his life and this gradually increased to 3 with Ivy Lodge. We only brought social services in in the first place to help when Reynalds cross school discriminated against James because of his disability according to the SENDIST Tribunal. There were never any issues with James daytime care. When my mom sadly contracted cancer 6 years ago Monica took over James’s weekday care and his former social worker, Melody Cobb reassured us that the professional carers Monica appointed for James’s weekday care were properly trained for James seizures and medication to bring him out of his seizures. Melody said they were ok and that was fine by James family.
There were never any other issues until last month when Monica subjected James and his family to a tirade of abuse by tapering off his Skype contact, then going incommunicado then misleading social services and QAC and breaching the Mental Capacity Act and the Disability Discrimination laws and depriving him of his liberty to receive his loved ones for short visits at his place of residence and days out just as his non incapacitated peers enjoy the freedom to do.
It is very important that if ever Monica contacts the Court of protection for any deputyships (social services will be told of this) for James I must be informed because the deputyship would have no legal status if James’s family were not at the hearing.
Now that Monica has an established track record of misleading and misrepresenting the facts to Social Services and James’s colleges please copy me in (and any new social worker) with all James’s reports and any views Monica passes to Social Services so that she is never again given so much freedom to mislead Social Services, QAC and any other institution my son may attend or reside at. Lessons must be learned and Monica must never be allowed to subject James and his family to such a tirade of abuse and deception ever again.
Now that James’s paternal family and brothers are named contacts for James at QAC by the authority of clause 16.2 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 we do not anticipate any problems when his brothers visit James for occasional short visits and some days out in November and December during this year’s annual trip to visit James and Sasha and bring all the kids together so they can maintain their loving fraternal bonds and friendships.
Kind regards
Simon
On 24 October 2014 16:55, Ivko, Katy (Adult Social Care – Solihull MBC) <katyivko@solihull.gov.uk> wrote:
Hi Simon,
Thank you for your emails and for your invitation to meet with yourself and James’s family. I do not think a meeting is necessary as I am already aware that you are James’s family and that you have been having regular contact with him while he is at QAC. I have incorporated the views you sent me on Tuesday into James’s review and I will post a copy to you once this has been completed. Once I have posted out James’s review I will no longer be his allocated social worker as he seems happy and settled at QAC. If you would like to speak to a social worker in the future regarding James you can call 0121 704 8007 and ask to speak to the duty social worker.
Kind regards,
Katy
Katy Ivko
Social worker
South Support Planning Team
3 The Green
Shirley
Solihull
B90 4LA
0121 704 8007 etx 3189
Work mobile: 07795450849
From: Simon Foden [mailto:simon@foden.net]
Sent: 24 October 2014 10:36
To: Ivko, Katy (Adult Social Care – Solihull MBC); Beverley Jessop; Andy Dennehy
Subject: Fwd: My son’s report
Morning Katy
It has been exposed how Monica has abused a severely incapacitated and vulnerable young person by telling you a pack of lies about his growing family of past and future carers (information derived from the tone and content of your initial communication and Monica’s recent emails where she tried and failed to defend her abuse.
Now it has been exposed please under Data Protection Act please give me a copy of all of the views she has given you about James and his family so that you and I can work together to remove Monica’s lies from your records and replace them with accurate and truthful information and stop her in her tracks from ever abusing a severely incapacitated and vulnerable young man by spinning lies and balderdash to mislead social workers, residences and schools as part of her plot to deprive him of his liberty under the Mental Capacity Act and Disability Discrimination laws ever again.
We must work together to ensure that no decisions are taken for James that are not in his best interests and he is never, ever, I repeat – never ever deprived of his liberty to receive his loved ones as guests for short visits and to take him out for family days out just as his non incapacitated peers can do. The Whole point of the Mental Capacity Act is to prevent people like Monica abusing people like James and to ensure James as the same liberties and protection as his none incapacitated peers.
James family will be in Birmingham from 6th November and we would like to meet up with you so that you can meet Dad step Mom Cherma, brother Sasha and brother Sirus so that you can see for yourself that we are just a normal happy family who Monica left James with from birth and, barring the last couple of years since my parents died have taken care of James all his life. You can see for yourself that everything she has told you was a very very sweet sound pack of lies but a pack of lies all the same.
Please get your records ready so that we can get them corrected. Don’t let Monica trick you into covering up any of the lies she has told you as we need to keep them on the record in order to ensure she can never abuse James like this again and in future all of James rights are adhered to and James’s family are never again subjected to the terror, the distress and the pain of Monica’s lies and abuse ever again.
We look forward to meeting you.
Kind regards
Simon
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Simon Foden <simon@foden.net>
Date: 20 October 2014 17:55
Subject: Fwd: My son’s report
To: “Ivko, Katy (Adult Social Care – Solihull MBC)” <katyivko@solihull.gov.uk>, Beverley Jessop <bjessop@qac.ac.uk>, Andy Dennehy <adennehy@qac.ac.uk>
Correction of bullet point 12 – it should read like this:
Monica can’t hide behind the social worker now its been exposed that Monica has wilfully misled the social worker in the same way she wilfully misled QAC on James’s application form. The social worker is not able to cover up the evidence because its easy to bring it into the public domain, therefore full compliance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 for Monica and all involved with my helplessly incapacitated son’s care is the only way forward.
Please don’t ignore this email and please understand that the stakes are very very high here and in view of the distressing nightmare Monica has subjected James family to over the last couple of months this issue will not go away until James’s rights under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 for his family to have the right, to be named contacts at whatever residence James is residing at at the time including QAC presently in order to prevent Monica from abusing James again by airbrushing his loved ones out of his life with untruthful application forms and deprivation of his rights to have the same liberty as his non helplessly incapacitated peers to receive his loved ones as guests at his place of residence for short visits and some days out.
Kind regards
Simon
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Simon Foden <simon@foden.net>
Date: 20 October 2014 17:27
Subject: Re: My son’s report
To: “Ivko, Katy (Adult Social Care – Solihull MBC)” <katyivko@solihull.gov.uk>, Beverley Jessop <bjessop@qac.ac.uk>, Andy Dennehy <adennehy@qac.ac.uk>
Morning Katy
“I will not be including information about contact arrangements as this is for yourself and Monica to arrange”.
Re your assertion above. How can James’s family arrange contact arrangements for James to see his loved ones for brief visits at his place of residence, something that all non incapacitated people are at liberty to do, when Monica keeps going incommunicado? You know she tapered off James’s Skype contact in the 3 months prior to James taking his place at QAC whilst she was busily abusing James by airbrushing his loved ones out of his life in her negligent and false application form for QAC.
At my father’s funeral she put her arms around me to comfort me while I was crying (which was shocking as she’d only ever shown dislike towards me she she left when James was 4 years old) and said she would never try to stop James’s family from seeing James. It is clear now that this was just more of her sweet talking sweet smiled manipulative lies just to make it even more painful when when her scheming plot to abuse a severely vulnerable and helpless young adult by depriving him of his liberty to receive his family at his place of residence came to fruition. She planned this for a long long time!
1 How can James’s family arrange contact arrangements for James to see his loved ones for brief visits at his place of residence, something that all non incapacitated people are at liberty to do, when Monica keeps going incommunicado? She went incommunicado when she set up her campaign of abuse against a defenceless young adult neglecting to tell his residential college about his family and now she has gone incommunicado again because James’s family don”t and will never accept Monica’s point of view that she is above the Mental capacity Act 2005 and therefore is free to make abusive decisions about this incapacitated young individual like false information on his application form and depriving him of his liberty to receive his loved ones as gusts at his place of residence as James’s non incapacitated 19 year old peers can.
2 Is it not your job to prevent Monica from abusing James by her scheming attempts to airbrush James’s family out of his life and reckless non compliance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
3 Please don’t tell me to discuss arrangements with Monica because you are already aware that she has made herself incommunicado again.
4 Please don’t tell me to get legal advice because as you know, the legal advice from my barrister is that Monica is in breach of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 by depriving James of his liberty to have free access to his family for short visits and occasional days out and to ensure that his bonds with his brothers who will one day be the only family he has left remain strong. If James was not so helplessly incapacitated he would enjoy free access to receive his loved ones for short visits and occasional days out. The only reason James is currently deprived of this is because Monica is in breach of the Act and that she didn’t tell the whole truth on James’s application and she has misled James’s social worker.
5 Please don’t cover up the mountain of evidence you are in possession of that Monica is abusing James’s helpless incapacity by depriving James of his liberty and making bad decisions for him like airbrushing his past and future support network out of his life.
6 James’s family had a partial agreement in place with Beverly at QAC but since then Monica made a brief comeback from her initial incommunicado (the one where she was abusing James by setting up the airbrushing of his family out of his life leading to embarrassing shock at QAC that James had a lifelong and growing family support network knowing that James is to helpless and incapacitated to do anything about it) when she made a brief defence of why she believes she has the right to abuse James with her pretty sweet talking bullet points such as his 3 siblings have two different mothers. Of course these feeble excuses were rejected by James’s loved ones and because we reject the right of Monica to take advantage of James’s helpless incapacity to break the metal Capacity Act 2005 she has made herself incommunicado.
7 As, in view of all the mountain of evidence that Monica has taken advantage of James’s helpless incapacity to further her apparent hate campaign against James’s family, the family she left James with for most of his life – it is now clear that when she was cuddling me at my dad’s funeral she was already plotting this hate attack on James’s growing family – I put it to Monica that what she was scheming and plotting was something like this: “when James is at residential college and I don’t need James’s family any more to help,me with James’s care – I will show them how much I hate them by stopping James from seeing his family by spinning some sweet sounding balderdash, balderdash as sweet as my smile and lay it out in pretty bullet points and James’s social worker will get taken in by it and she will cover up any protests from James’s loved ones and I don’t care if my scheming plot gets the social worker into trouble.”
8 Please don’t let Monica get you into trouble by tricking you into covering up the mountain of evidence that she has and is abusing James’s helpless incapacity by breaching the Mental Capacity Act 2005 in her negligent application form whilst she made herself incommunicado and her deprivation of James’s liberty to receive his loved ones for short visits at his current place of residence so that he has the same rights as a non disabled non incapacitated peer would have. Her behaviour, as my barrister pointed out – is totally contrary to the Act.
9 Beverly at QAC has so far not taken Monica’s bate as Monica relentlessly goads QAC to break the Mental Capacity Act. Beverly as so far resisted and the first two Skype contacts have taken place unhindered. There is one more due this evening.
Katy, please be as smart as Beverly because James is too wonderful and beautiful to be abused by Monica as above and it is your job to stop the abuse not aid and abet it by covering up the evidence from your reports.
10 There were no disagreements between Monica and I in recent times in the years after my parents died, Mom died in December 2011 and Dad died a month later that’s why it was puzzling why she was not answering the phone to set up James’s Skype contact in the run up to James’s place at QAC. All I have left are my 3 children with fourth due in April. This is why the stakes are so high and Monica must fail in her abuse of James’s helpless incapacity to airbush his past and future family support network from his life, James is helpless to stop her, her negligent application form for QAC and her reckless disregard for the Mental Capacity Act 2005 her wilful neglect to comply with the Act’s requirement that helpless incapacitated people like James have the same rights to receive their loved ones for short visits at their place of residence as their non incapacitated peers. The kids all love each other and James loves all his siblings and he knows there is a new baby due in April.
11 The only way to prevent Monica from ever stirring up such a hornets nest, such a distressing nightmare for James’s family again is for Social Services to recognise her ill deeds towards James and his family and the embarrassment she has caused at James’s college and simply tell Monica that James’s family have the right, under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to be named contacts at whatever residence James is residing at at the time including QAC presently.
12 Please don’t ignore this email and please understand that the stakes are very very high here and in view of the distressing nightmare Monica has subjected James to over the last couple of months this issue will not go away until James’s rights under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 for his family to have the right, to be named contacts at whatever residence James is residing at at the time including QAC presently in order to prevent Monica from abusing James again by airbrushing his loved ones out of his life with untruthful application forms and deprivation of his rights to have the same liberty to receive his loved ones as guests at his for short visits at his place of residence as his non helplessly incapacitated peers have.
Kind regards
Simon
On 15 October 2014 14:26, Ivko, Katy (Adult Social Care – Solihull MBC) <katyivko@solihull.gov.uk> wrote:
Hi Simon,
Thank you for your email. I will not be attaching the report in full as when I write up the review I will be incorporating the information provided by all parties, but I am pleased to hear that you feel James’s placement at QAC is working well. As the review will be focused on James and his care while at QAC, I will not be including information about contact arrangements as this is for yourself and Monica to arrange. If you could provide me with an address to send the completed report to, will of course post you a copy.
Kind regards,
Katy
Katy Ivko
Social worker
South Support Planning Team
3 The Green
Shirley
Solihull
B90 4LA
0121 704 8007 etx 3189
Work mobile: 07795450849
From: Simon Foden [mailto:simon@foden.net]
Sent: 14 October 2014 16:28
To: Ivko, Katy (Adult Social Care – Solihull MBC)
Subject: My son’s report
Hi Katy
Please confirm receipt of my contribution to James’s report which I would like attaching in full. Also, I would be grateful if you could send me a copy of the completed report.
Kind regards
Simon
**********************************************************************
DISCLAIMER:
‘This e-mail and files transmitted with it are confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and delete the message. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Solihull Council unless explicitly stated otherwise. Solihull Council may monitor the contents of e-mail sent and received via its network for the purposes of ensuring compliance with its policies and procedures. The contents of e-mails may have to be disclosed to third parties following a request under legislation such as the Data Protection Act 1998 or the Freedom of Information Act 2000.’
**********************************************************************
| Simon Foden <simon@foden.net> | 8 May | |||
| Simon Foden <simon@foden.net> | |||||
| to kmillard | ||||
| to kmillard |
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Simon Foden <simon@foden.net>
Date: 24 October 2014 at 16:35
Subject: Fwd: My son’s report
To: “Ivko, Katy (Adult Social Care – Solihull MBC)” <katyivko@solihull.gov.uk>, Beverley Jessop <bjessop@qac.ac.uk>, Andy Dennehy <adennehy@qac.ac.uk>
Morning Katy
It has been exposed how Monica has abused a severely incapacitated and vulnerable young person by telling you a pack of lies about his growing family of past and future carers (information derived from the tone and content of your initial communication and Monica’s recent emails where she tried and failed to defend her abuse.
Now it has been exposed please under Data Protection Act please give me a copy of all of the views she has given you about James and his family so that you and I can work together to remove Monica’s lies from your records and replace them with accurate and truthful information and stop her in her tracks from ever abusing a severely incapacitated and vulnerable young man by spinning lies and balderdash to mislead social workers, residences and schools as part of her plot to deprive him of his liberty under the Mental Capacity Act and Disability Discrimination laws ever again.
We must work together to ensure that no decisions are taken for James that are not in his best interests and he is never, ever, I repeat – never ever deprived of his liberty to receive his loved ones as guests for short visits and to take him out for family days out just as his non incapacitated peers can do. The Whole point of the Mental Capacity Act is to prevent people like Monica abusing people like James and to ensure James as the same liberties and protection as his none incapacitated peers.
James family will be in Birmingham from 6th November and we would like to meet up with you so that you can meet Dad step Mom Cherma, brother Sasha and brother Sirus so that you can see for yourself that we are just a normal happy family who Monica left James with from birth and, barring the last couple of years since my parents died have taken care of James all his life. You can see for yourself that everything she has told you was a very very sweet sound pack of lies but a pack of lies all the same.
Please get your records ready so that we can get them corrected. Don’t let Monica trick you into covering up any of the lies she has told you as we need to keep them on the record in order to ensure she can never abuse James like this again and in future all of James rights are adhered to and James’s family are never again subjected to the terror, the distress and the pain of Monica’s lies and abuse ever again.
We look forward to meeting you.
Kind regards
Simon
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Simon Foden <simon@foden.net>
Date: 20 October 2014 17:55
Subject: Fwd: My son’s report
To: “Ivko, Katy (Adult Social Care – Solihull MBC)” <katyivko@solihull.gov.uk>, Beverley Jessop <bjessop@qac.ac.uk>, Andy Dennehy <adennehy@qac.ac.uk>
Correction of bullet point 12 – it should read like this:
Monica can’t hide behind the social worker now its been exposed that Monica has wilfully misled the social worker in the same way she wilfully misled QAC on James’s application form. The social worker is not able to cover up the evidence because its easy to bring it into the public domain, therefore full compliance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 for Monica and all involved with my helplessly incapacitated son’s care is the only way forward.
Please don’t ignore this email and please understand that the stakes are very very high here and in view of the distressing nightmare Monica has subjected James family to over the last couple of months this issue will not go away until James’s rights under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 for his family to have the right, to be named contacts at whatever residence James is residing at at the time including QAC presently in order to prevent Monica from abusing James again by airbrushing his loved ones out of his life with untruthful application forms and deprivation of his rights to have the same liberty as his non helplessly incapacitated peers to receive his loved ones as guests at his place of residence for short visits and some days out.
Kind regards
Simon
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Simon Foden <simon@foden.net>
Date: 20 October 2014 17:27
Subject: Re: My son’s report
To: “Ivko, Katy (Adult Social Care – Solihull MBC)” <katyivko@solihull.gov.uk>, Beverley Jessop <bjessop@qac.ac.uk>, Andy Dennehy <adennehy@qac.ac.uk>
Morning Katy
“I will not be including information about contact arrangements as this is for yourself and Monica to arrange”.
Re your assertion above. How can James’s family arrange contact arrangements for James to see his loved ones for brief visits at his place of residence, something that all non incapacitated people are at liberty to do, when Monica keeps going incommunicado? You know she tapered off James’s Skype contact in the 3 months prior to James taking his place at QAC whilst she was busily abusing James by airbrushing his loved ones out of his life in her negligent and false application form for QAC.
At my father’s funeral she put her arms around me to comfort me while I was crying (which was shocking as she’d only ever shown dislike towards me she she left when James was 4 years old) and said she would never try to stop James’s family from seeing James. It is clear now that this was just more of her sweet talking sweet smiled manipulative lies just to make it even more painful when when her scheming plot to abuse a severely vulnerable and helpless young adult by depriving him of his liberty to receive his family at his place of residence came to fruition. She planned this for a long long time!
1 How can James’s family arrange contact arrangements for James to see his loved ones for brief visits at his place of residence, something that all non incapacitated people are at liberty to do, when Monica keeps going incommunicado? She went incommunicado when she set up her campaign of abuse against a defenceless young adult neglecting to tell his residential college about his family and now she has gone incommunicado again because James’s family don”t and will never accept Monica’s point of view that she is above the Mental capacity Act 2005 and therefore is free to make abusive decisions about this incapacitated young individual like false information on his application form and depriving him of his liberty to receive his loved ones as gusts at his place of residence as James’s non incapacitated 19 year old peers can.
2 Is it not your job to prevent Monica from abusing James by her scheming attempts to airbrush James’s family out of his life and reckless non compliance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
3 Please don’t tell me to discuss arrangements with Monica because you are already aware that she has made herself incommunicado again.
4 Please don’t tell me to get legal advice because as you know, the legal advice from my barrister is that Monica is in breach of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 by depriving James of his liberty to have free access to his family for short visits and occasional days out and to ensure that his bonds with his brothers who will one day be the only family he has left remain strong. If James was not so helplessly incapacitated he would enjoy free access to receive his loved ones for short visits and occasional days out. The only reason James is currently deprived of this is because Monica is in breach of the Act and that she didn’t tell the whole truth on James’s application and she has misled James’s social worker.
5 Please don’t cover up the mountain of evidence you are in possession of that Monica is abusing James’s helpless incapacity by depriving James of his liberty and making bad decisions for him like airbrushing his past and future support network out of his life.
6 James’s family had a partial agreement in place with Beverly at QAC but since then Monica made a brief comeback from her initial incommunicado (the one where she was abusing James by setting up the airbrushing of his family out of his life leading to embarrassing shock at QAC that James had a lifelong and growing family support network knowing that James is to helpless and incapacitated to do anything about it) when she made a brief defence of why she believes she has the right to abuse James with her pretty sweet talking bullet points such as his 3 siblings have two different mothers. Of course these feeble excuses were rejected by James’s loved ones and because we reject the right of Monica to take advantage of James’s helpless incapacity to break the metal Capacity Act 2005 she has made herself incommunicado.
7 As, in view of all the mountain of evidence that Monica has taken advantage of James’s helpless incapacity to further her apparent hate campaign against James’s family, the family she left James with for most of his life – it is now clear that when she was cuddling me at my dad’s funeral she was already plotting this hate attack on James’s growing family – I put it to Monica that what she was scheming and plotting was something like this: “when James is at residential college and I don’t need James’s family any more to help,me with James’s care – I will show them how much I hate them by stopping James from seeing his family by spinning some sweet sounding balderdash, balderdash as sweet as my smile and lay it out in pretty bullet points and James’s social worker will get taken in by it and she will cover up any protests from James’s loved ones and I don’t care if my scheming plot gets the social worker into trouble.”
8 Please don’t let Monica get you into trouble by tricking you into covering up the mountain of evidence that she has and is abusing James’s helpless incapacity by breaching the Mental Capacity Act 2005 in her negligent application form whilst she made herself incommunicado and her deprivation of James’s liberty to receive his loved ones for short visits at his current place of residence so that he has the same rights as a non disabled non incapacitated peer would have. Her behaviour, as my barrister pointed out – is totally contrary to the Act.
9 Beverly at QAC has so far not taken Monica’s bate as Monica relentlessly goads QAC to break the Mental Capacity Act. Beverly as so far resisted and the first two Skype contacts have taken place unhindered. There is one more due this evening.
Katy, please be as smart as Beverly because James is too wonderful and beautiful to be abused by Monica as above and it is your job to stop the abuse not aid and abet it by covering up the evidence from your reports.
10 There were no disagreements between Monica and I in recent times in the years after my parents died, Mom died in December 2011 and Dad died a month later that’s why it was puzzling why she was not answering the phone to set up James’s Skype contact in the run up to James’s place at QAC. All I have left are my 3 children with fourth due in April. This is why the stakes are so high and Monica must fail in her abuse of James’s helpless incapacity to airbush his past and future family support network from his life, James is helpless to stop her, her negligent application form for QAC and her reckless disregard for the Mental Capacity Act 2005 her wilful neglect to comply with the Act’s requirement that helpless incapacitated people like James have the same rights to receive their loved ones for short visits at their place of residence as their non incapacitated peers. The kids all love each other and James loves all his siblings and he knows there is a new baby due in April.
11 The only way to prevent Monica from ever stirring up such a hornets nest, such a distressing nightmare for James’s family again is for Social Services to recognise her ill deeds towards James and his family and the embarrassment she has caused at James’s college and simply tell Monica that James’s family have the right, under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to be named contacts at whatever residence James is residing at at the time including QAC presently.
12 Please don’t ignore this email and please understand that the stakes are very very high here and in view of the distressing nightmare Monica has subjected James to over the last couple of months this issue will not go away until James’s rights under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 for his family to have the right, to be named contacts at whatever residence James is residing at at the time including QAC presently in order to prevent Monica from abusing James again by airbrushing his loved ones out of his life with untruthful application forms and deprivation of his rights to have the same liberty to receive his loved ones as guests at his for short visits at his place of residence as his non helplessly incapacitated peers have.
Kind regards
Simon
On 15 October 2014 14:26, Ivko, Katy (Adult Social Care – Solihull MBC) <katyivko@solihull.gov.uk> wrote:
Hi Simon,
Thank you for your email. I will not be attaching the report in full as when I write up the review I will be incorporating the information provided by all parties, but I am pleased to hear that you feel James’s placement at QAC is working well. As the review will be focused on James and his care while at QAC, I will not be including information about contact arrangements as this is for yourself and Monica to arrange. If you could provide me with an address to send the completed report to, will of course post you a copy.
Kind regards,
Katy
Katy Ivko
Social worker
South Support Planning Team
3 The Green
Shirley
Solihull
B90 4LA
0121 704 8007 etx 3189
Work mobile: 07795450849
From: Simon Foden [mailto:simon@foden.net]
Sent: 14 October 2014 16:28
To: Ivko, Katy (Adult Social Care – Solihull MBC)
Subject: My son’s report
Hi Katy
Please confirm receipt of my contribution to James’s report which I would like attaching in full. Also, I would be grateful if you could send me a copy of the completed report.
Kind regards
Simon
**********************************************************************
DISCLAIMER:
‘This e-mail and files transmitted with it are confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and delete the message. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Solihull Council unless explicitly stated otherwise. Solihull Council may monitor the contents of e-mail sent and received via its network for the purposes of ensuring compliance with its policies and procedures. The contents of e-mails may have to be disclosed to third parties following a request under legislation such as the Data Protection Act 1998 or the Freedom of Information Act 2000.’
**********************************************************************
Simon Foden <simon@foden.net>
8 May
to kmillard
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Simon Foden <simon@foden.net>
Date: 20 October 2014 at 17:55
Subject: Fwd: My son’s report
To: “Ivko, Katy (Adult Social Care – Solihull MBC)” <katyivko@solihull.gov.uk>, Beverley Jessop <bjessop@qac.ac.uk>, Andy Dennehy <adennehy@qac.ac.uk>
Correction of bullet point 12 – it should read like this:
Monica can’t hide behind the social worker now its been exposed that Monica has wilfully misled the social worker in the same way she wilfully misled QAC on James’s application form. The social worker is not able to cover up the evidence because its easy to bring it into the public domain, therefore full compliance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 for Monica and all involved with my helplessly incapacitated son’s care is the only way forward.
Please don’t ignore this email and please understand that the stakes are very very high here and in view of the distressing nightmare Monica has subjected James family to over the last couple of months this issue will not go away until James’s rights under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 for his family to have the right, to be named contacts at whatever residence James is residing at at the time including QAC presently in order to prevent Monica from abusing James again by airbrushing his loved ones out of his life with untruthful application forms and deprivation of his rights to have the same liberty as his non helplessly incapacitated peers to receive his loved ones as guests at his place of residence for short visits and some days out.
Kind regards
Simon
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Simon Foden <simon@foden.net>
Date: 20 October 2014 17:27
Subject: Re: My son’s report
To: “Ivko, Katy (Adult Social Care – Solihull MBC)” <katyivko@solihull.gov.uk>, Beverley Jessop <bjessop@qac.ac.uk>, Andy Dennehy <adennehy@qac.ac.uk>
Morning Katy
“I will not be including information about contact arrangements as this is for yourself and Monica to arrange”.
Re your assertion above. How can James’s family arrange contact arrangements for James to see his loved ones for brief visits at his place of residence, something that all non incapacitated people are at liberty to do, when Monica keeps going incommunicado? You know she tapered off James’s Skype contact in the 3 months prior to James taking his place at QAC whilst she was busily abusing James by airbrushing his loved ones out of his life in her negligent and false application form for QAC.
At my father’s funeral she put her arms around me to comfort me while I was crying (which was shocking as she’d only ever shown dislike towards me she she left when James was 4 years old) and said she would never try to stop James’s family from seeing James. It is clear now that this was just more of her sweet talking sweet smiled manipulative lies just to make it even more painful when when her scheming plot to abuse a severely vulnerable and helpless young adult by depriving him of his liberty to receive his family at his place of residence came to fruition. She planned this for a long long time!
1 How can James’s family arrange contact arrangements for James to see his loved ones for brief visits at his place of residence, something that all non incapacitated people are at liberty to do, when Monica keeps going incommunicado? She went incommunicado when she set up her campaign of abuse against a defenceless young adult neglecting to tell his residential college about his family and now she has gone incommunicado again because James’s family don”t and will never accept Monica’s point of view that she is above the Mental capacity Act 2005 and therefore is free to make abusive decisions about this incapacitated young individual like false information on his application form and depriving him of his liberty to receive his loved ones as gusts at his place of residence as James’s non incapacitated 19 year old peers can.
2 Is it not your job to prevent Monica from abusing James by her scheming attempts to airbrush James’s family out of his life and reckless non compliance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
3 Please don’t tell me to discuss arrangements with Monica because you are already aware that she has made herself incommunicado again.
4 Please don’t tell me to get legal advice because as you know, the legal advice from my barrister is that Monica is in breach of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 by depriving James of his liberty to have free access to his family for short visits and occasional days out and to ensure that his bonds with his brothers who will one day be the only family he has left remain strong. If James was not so helplessly incapacitated he would enjoy free access to receive his loved ones for short visits and occasional days out. The only reason James is currently deprived of this is because Monica is in breach of the Act and that she didn’t tell the whole truth on James’s application and she has misled James’s social worker.
5 Please don’t cover up the mountain of evidence you are in possession of that Monica is abusing James’s helpless incapacity by depriving James of his liberty and making bad decisions for him like airbrushing his past and future support network out of his life.
6 James’s family had a partial agreement in place with Beverly at QAC but since then Monica made a brief comeback from her initial incommunicado (the one where she was abusing James by setting up the airbrushing of his family out of his life leading to embarrassing shock at QAC that James had a lifelong and growing family support network knowing that James is to helpless and incapacitated to do anything about it) when she made a brief defence of why she believes she has the right to abuse James with her pretty sweet talking bullet points such as his 3 siblings have two different mothers. Of course these feeble excuses were rejected by James’s loved ones and because we reject the right of Monica to take advantage of James’s helpless incapacity to break the metal Capacity Act 2005 she has made herself incommunicado.
7 As, in view of all the mountain of evidence that Monica has taken advantage of James’s helpless incapacity to further her apparent hate campaign against James’s family, the family she left James with for most of his life – it is now clear that when she was cuddling me at my dad’s funeral she was already plotting this hate attack on James’s growing family – I put it to Monica that what she was scheming and plotting was something like this: “when James is at residential college and I don’t need James’s family any more to help,me with James’s care – I will show them how much I hate them by stopping James from seeing his family by spinning some sweet sounding balderdash, balderdash as sweet as my smile and lay it out in pretty bullet points and James’s social worker will get taken in by it and she will cover up any protests from James’s loved ones and I don’t care if my scheming plot gets the social worker into trouble.”
8 Please don’t let Monica get you into trouble by tricking you into covering up the mountain of evidence that she has and is abusing James’s helpless incapacity by breaching the Mental Capacity Act 2005 in her negligent application form whilst she made herself incommunicado and her deprivation of James’s liberty to receive his loved ones for short visits at his current place of residence so that he has the same rights as a non disabled non incapacitated peer would have. Her behaviour, as my barrister pointed out – is totally contrary to the Act.
9 Beverly at QAC has so far not taken Monica’s bate as Monica relentlessly goads QAC to break the Mental Capacity Act. Beverly as so far resisted and the first two Skype contacts have taken place unhindered. There is one more due this evening.
Katy, please be as smart as Beverly because James is too wonderful and beautiful to be abused by Monica as above and it is your job to stop the abuse not aid and abet it by covering up the evidence from your reports.
10 There were no disagreements between Monica and I in recent times in the years after my parents died, Mom died in December 2011 and Dad died a month later that’s why it was puzzling why she was not answering the phone to set up James’s Skype contact in the run up to James’s place at QAC. All I have left are my 3 children with fourth due in April. This is why the stakes are so high and Monica must fail in her abuse of James’s helpless incapacity to airbush his past and future family support network from his life, James is helpless to stop her, her negligent application form for QAC and her reckless disregard for the Mental Capacity Act 2005 her wilful neglect to comply with the Act’s requirement that helpless incapacitated people like James have the same rights to receive their loved ones for short visits at their place of residence as their non incapacitated peers. The kids all love each other and James loves all his siblings and he knows there is a new baby due in April.
11 The only way to prevent Monica from ever stirring up such a hornets nest, such a distressing nightmare for James’s family again is for Social Services to recognise her ill deeds towards James and his family and the embarrassment she has caused at James’s college and simply tell Monica that James’s family have the right, under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to be named contacts at whatever residence James is residing at at the time including QAC presently.
12 Please don’t ignore this email and please understand that the stakes are very very high here and in view of the distressing nightmare Monica has subjected James to over the last couple of months this issue will not go away until James’s rights under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 for his family to have the right, to be named contacts at whatever residence James is residing at at the time including QAC presently in order to prevent Monica from abusing James again by airbrushing his loved ones out of his life with untruthful application forms and deprivation of his rights to have the same liberty to receive his loved ones as guests at his for short visits at his place of residence as his non helplessly incapacitated peers have.
Kind regards
Simon
On 15 October 2014 14:26, Ivko, Katy (Adult Social Care – Solihull MBC) <katyivko@solihull.gov.uk> wrote:
Hi Simon,
Thank you for your email. I will not be attaching the report in full as when I write up the review I will be incorporating the information provided by all parties, but I am pleased to hear that you feel James’s placement at QAC is working well. As the review will be focused on James and his care while at QAC, I will not be including information about contact arrangements as this is for yourself and Monica to arrange. If you could provide me with an address to send the completed report to, will of course post you a copy.
Kind regards,
Katy
Katy Ivko
Social worker
South Support Planning Team
3 The Green
Shirley
Solihull
B90 4LA
0121 704 8007 etx 3189
Work mobile: 07795450849
From: Simon Foden [mailto:simon@foden.net]
Sent: 14 October 2014 16:28
To: Ivko, Katy (Adult Social Care – Solihull MBC)
Subject: My son’s report
Hi Katy
Please confirm receipt of my contribution to James’s report which I would like attaching in full. Also, I would be grateful if you could send me a copy of the completed report.
Kind regards
Simon
**********************************************************************
DISCLAIMER:
‘This e-mail and files transmitted with it are confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and delete the message. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Solihull Council unless explicitly stated otherwise. Solihull Council may monitor the contents of e-mail sent and received via its network for the purposes of ensuring compliance with its policies and procedures. The contents of e-mails may have to be disclosed to third parties following a request under legislation such as the Data Protection Act 1998 or the Freedom of Information Act 2000.’
**********************************************************************
Simon Foden <simon@foden.net>
8 May
to kmillard
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Simon Foden <simon@foden.net>
Date: 20 October 2014 at 17:27
Subject: Re: My son’s report
To: “Ivko, Katy (Adult Social Care – Solihull MBC)” <katyivko@solihull.gov.uk>, Beverley Jessop <bjessop@qac.ac.uk>, Andy Dennehy <adennehy@qac.ac.uk>
Morning Katy
“I will not be including information about contact arrangements as this is for yourself and Monica to arrange”.
Re your assertion above. How can James’s family arrange contact arrangements for James to see his loved ones for brief visits at his place of residence, something that all non incapacitated people are at liberty to do, when Monica keeps going incommunicado? You know she tapered off James’s Skype contact in the 3 months prior to James taking his place at QAC whilst she was busily abusing James by airbrushing his loved ones out of his life in her negligent and false application form for QAC.
At my father’s funeral she put her arms around me to comfort me while I was crying (which was shocking as she’d only ever shown dislike towards me she she left when James was 4 years old) and said she would never try to stop James’s family from seeing James. It is clear now that this was just more of her sweet talking sweet smiled manipulative lies just to make it even more painful when when her scheming plot to abuse a severely vulnerable and helpless young adult by depriving him of his liberty to receive his family at his place of residence came to fruition. She planned this for a long long time!
1 How can James’s family arrange contact arrangements for James to see his loved ones for brief visits at his place of residence, something that all non incapacitated people are at liberty to do, when Monica keeps going incommunicado? She went incommunicado when she set up her campaign of abuse against a defenceless young adult neglecting to tell his residential college about his family and now she has gone incommunicado again because James’s family don”t and will never accept Monica’s point of view that she is above the Mental capacity Act 2005 and therefore is free to make abusive decisions about this incapacitated young individual like false information on his application form and depriving him of his liberty to receive his loved ones as gusts at his place of residence as James’s non incapacitated 19 year old peers can.
2 Is it not your job to prevent Monica from abusing James by her scheming attempts to airbrush James’s family out of his life and reckless non compliance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
3 Please don’t tell me to discuss arrangements with Monica because you are already aware that she has made herself incommunicado again.
4 Please don’t tell me to get legal advice because as you know, the legal advice from my barrister is that Monica is in breach of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 by depriving James of his liberty to have free access to his family for short visits and occasional days out and to ensure that his bonds with his brothers who will one day be the only family he has left remain strong. If James was not so helplessly incapacitated he would enjoy free access to receive his loved ones for short visits and occasional days out. The only reason James is currently deprived of this is because Monica is in breach of the Act and that she didn’t tell the whole truth on James’s application and she has misled James’s social worker.
5 Please don’t cover up the mountain of evidence you are in possession of that Monica is abusing James’s helpless incapacity by depriving James of his liberty and making bad decisions for him like airbrushing his past and future support network out of his life.
6 James’s family had a partial agreement in place with Beverly at QAC but since then Monica made a brief comeback from her initial incommunicado (the one where she was abusing James by setting up the airbrushing of his family out of his life leading to embarrassing shock at QAC that James had a lifelong and growing family support network knowing that James is to helpless and incapacitated to do anything about it) when she made a brief defence of why she believes she has the right to abuse James with her pretty sweet talking bullet points such as his 3 siblings have two different mothers. Of course these feeble excuses were rejected by James’s loved ones and because we reject the right of Monica to take advantage of James’s helpless incapacity to break the metal Capacity Act 2005 she has made herself incommunicado.
7 As, in view of all the mountain of evidence that Monica has taken advantage of James’s helpless incapacity to further her apparent hate campaign against James’s family, the family she left James with for most of his life – it is now clear that when she was cuddling me at my dad’s funeral she was already plotting this hate attack on James’s growing family – I put it to Monica that what she was scheming and plotting was something like this: “when James is at residential college and I don’t need James’s family any more to help,me with James’s care – I will show them how much I hate them by stopping James from seeing his family by spinning some sweet sounding balderdash, balderdash as sweet as my smile and lay it out in pretty bullet points and James’s social worker will get taken in by it and she will cover up any protests from James’s loved ones and I don’t care if my scheming plot gets the social worker into trouble.”
8 Please don’t let Monica get you into trouble by tricking you into covering up the mountain of evidence that she has and is abusing James’s helpless incapacity by breaching the Mental Capacity Act 2005 in her negligent application form whilst she made herself incommunicado and her deprivation of James’s liberty to receive his loved ones for short visits at his current place of residence so that he has the same rights as a non disabled non incapacitated peer would have. Her behaviour, as my barrister pointed out – is totally contrary to the Act.
9 Beverly at QAC has so far not taken Monica’s bate as Monica relentlessly goads QAC to break the Mental Capacity Act. Beverly as so far resisted and the first two Skype contacts have taken place unhindered. There is one more due this evening.
Katy, please be as smart as Beverly because James is too wonderful and beautiful to be abused by Monica as above and it is your job to stop the abuse not aid and abet it by covering up the evidence from your reports.
10 There were no disagreements between Monica and I in recent times in the years after my parents died, Mom died in December 2011 and Dad died a month later that’s why it was puzzling why she was not answering the phone to set up James’s Skype contact in the run up to James’s place at QAC. All I have left are my 3 children with fourth due in April. This is why the stakes are so high and Monica must fail in her abuse of James’s helpless incapacity to airbush his past and future family support network from his life, James is helpless to stop her, her negligent application form for QAC and her reckless disregard for the Mental Capacity Act 2005 her wilful neglect to comply with the Act’s requirement that helpless incapacitated people like James have the same rights to receive their loved ones for short visits at their place of residence as their non incapacitated peers. The kids all love each other and James loves all his siblings and he knows there is a new baby due in April.
11 The only way to prevent Monica from ever stirring up such a hornets nest, such a distressing nightmare for James’s family again is for Social Services to recognise her ill deeds towards James and his family and the embarrassment she has caused at James’s college and simply tell Monica that James’s family have the right, under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to be named contacts at whatever residence James is residing at at the time including QAC presently.
12 Please don’t ignore this email and please understand that the stakes are very very high here and in view of the distressing nightmare Monica has subjected James to over the last couple of months this issue will not go away until James’s rights under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 for his family to have the right, to be named contacts at whatever residence James is residing at at the time including QAC presently in order to prevent Monica from abusing James again by airbrushing his loved ones out of his life with untruthful application forms and deprivation of his rights to have the same liberty to receive his loved ones as guests at his for short visits at his place of residence as his non helplessly incapacitated peers have.
Kind regards
Simon
On 15 October 2014 14:26, Ivko, Katy (Adult Social Care – Solihull MBC) <katyivko@solihull.gov.uk> wrote:
Hi Simon,
Thank you for your email. I will not be attaching the report in full as when I write up the review I will be incorporating the information provided by all parties, but I am pleased to hear that you feel James’s placement at QAC is working well. As the review will be focused on James and his care while at QAC, I will not be including information about contact arrangements as this is for yourself and Monica to arrange. If you could provide me with an address to send the completed report to, will of course post you a copy.
Kind regards,
Katy
Katy Ivko
Social worker
South Support Planning Team
3 The Green
Shirley
Solihull
B90 4LA
0121 704 8007 etx 3189
Work mobile: 07795450849
From: Simon Foden [mailto:simon@foden.net]
Sent: 14 October 2014 16:28
To: Ivko, Katy (Adult Social Care – Solihull MBC)
Subject: My son’s report
Hi Katy
Please confirm receipt of my contribution to James’s report which I would like attaching in full. Also, I would be grateful if you could send me a copy of the completed report.
Kind regards
Simon
**********************************************************************
DISCLAIMER:
‘This e-mail and files transmitted with it are confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and delete the message. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Solihull Council unless explicitly stated otherwise. Solihull Council may monitor the contents of e-mail sent and received via its network for the purposes of ensuring compliance with its policies and procedures. The contents of e-mails may have to be disclosed to third parties following a request under legislation such as the Data Protection Act 1998 or the Freedom of Information Act 2000.’
**********************************************************************
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Simon Foden <simon@foden.net>
Date: 16 October 2014 at 20:07
Subject: Fwd: My son’s report
To: “Ivko, Katy (Adult Social Care – Solihull MBC)” <katyivko@solihull.gov.uk>, Beverley Jessop <bjessop@qac.ac.uk>
Hi Katy
Monica is abusing a severely vulnerable and incapacitated young adult by depriving him of his liberty and breaching section 16.2 of the mental Capacity Act 2005. You are fully aware of what she is doing. Please don’t cover up this abuse by excluding my contribution to James’s report that discloses,in diplomatic terms, how she is abusing a severely vulnerable and incapacitated young adult.
You have a duty of care to James not to cover up how Monica is abusing him by depriving him of his liberty to receive his loved ones as guests at his place of residence therefore please confirm you are including my contribution to James’s report in full which explains the above in more diplomatic terms.
By including my contribution in full I will be completely satisfied that you have done your best to protect James from Monica’s abuse. However, conversely, if you choose to cover up Monica’s abuse my deleting or censoring my contribution then you would be committing an act of professional negligence and James and I would have valid grounds for a professional negligence complaint.
As you don’t appear to have the courage to end this nightmare and tell Monica that the game is up and she can no longer deprive James of his liberty to receive his loved ones at his place of residence then the very least you can do is not cover up the information you are privy to and include my contribution to James’s review in full so that everybody involved in James’s care is aware of how Monica is depriving James of his liberty and the devastating effect this is having on James’s family.
Therefore please confirm you will not be covering up my contribution to James’s review and that, indeed, it will be included in full.
Kind regards
Simon
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Simon Foden <simon@foden.net>
Date: 15 October 2014 17:14
Subject: Re: My son’s report
To: “Ivko, Katy (Adult Social Care – Solihull MBC)” <katyivko@solihull.gov.uk>, Beverley Jessop <bjessop@qac.ac.uk>
Hi Katy
Please post to :
Simon Foden
Omnia One
125 Queen Street
Sheffield
South Yorkshire
S1 2DU
My contribution is not about contact, its about compliance with the law and ensuring that James’s legal rights whilst at QAC are adhered to.It was you yourself who told me to get legal advice. If you dig down into the broad thrust of my contribution to the review it is not about contact arrangements. Its much more to do with the devious and deceptive way Monica had gone out of her way to airbrush James family out of his life. This is there for all to see and nobody can deny her actions. It is nothing to do with contact arrangements. Its almost all about James at QAC in that he, as a severely incapacitated and vulnerable individual, has had decisions taken for him, by a third party that nobody agrees are in his best interests, e.g. neglecting to mention James close bonds with his father, brother Sasha and baby brother Sirus who will be his future carers when his mother and I are no longer around. Anybody can see that 90% of my contribution is about ensuring Monica complies with her obligations under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 during James’s stay at QAC in order to assure that James’s rights under the Act are fully adhered to. Therefore it is all about James at QAC – nothing to do with contact.
James is not only a severely vulnerable and incapacitated young adult, he’s probably one of the most vulnerable and incapacitated young people in Birmingham and the Mental Capacity Act 2005 was drawn up to protect vulnerable incapacitated people just like James from devious and deceptive people just like Monica stitching them up with bad decisions made for them and deprivation of liberty. I believe now that I’ve shed light on Monica’s infractions and lack of compliance with the Act that my contribution is a pertinent and important contribution to the review of James at QAC because QAC is a good institution and they would not want to fall into the trap Monica has set them by goading them to break the Act and deprive James – a severely vulnerable and incapacitated young adult – of his liberty.
My contribution is important to ensure legal compliance by all parties in James’s care, including social services to ensure that they all comply with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and ensure that James’s rights under the Act are adhered to. I believe, that with the knowledge Social Services now have of how Monica has clearly broken the the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and has gone out of her way to deprive a severely vulnerable and incapacitated person of his liberty (words from a barrister’s mouth) it would be negligent of Social Services to exclude such important information about James at QAC from his report. Therefore please include my contribution about James at QAC in full.
I hope that by James’s second report about him at QAC I will be able to report in my contribution that his rights under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 are fully adhered to. However this is clearly not the case right now and James has suffered clear breaches, by Monica, of his rights under the Act during the last couple of months including his first month at QAC and he has the right for this important information to be included in his report in order to help everybody learn from past breaches of the Act and ensure that James rights under the Act are adhered to going forward.
Therefore, again, for James, please include my contribution about James and legal compliance of all individuals in his care at QAC in full. There is nothing sinister in my contribution its just an accurate and informative piece about how James’s legal rights as an incapacitated person have been breached by Monica and how she has goaded QAC to breach them too. As far as I can ascertain, certainly regarding Skype, QAC have not taken Monica’s bate. Only Monica does sinister with her devious and deceptive ways whereas, conversely I just do accurate and informative contributions that shed light on legal compliance and there is nothing sinister in that. Therefore please include my contribution about James at QAC in full.
Kind regards
Simon
On 15 October 2014 14:26, Ivko, Katy (Adult Social Care – Solihull MBC) <katyivko@solihull.gov.uk> wrote:
Hi Simon,
Thank you for your email. I will not be attaching the report in full as when I write up the review I will be incorporating the information provided by all parties, but I am pleased to hear that you feel James’s placement at QAC is working well. As the review will be focused on James and his care while at QAC, I will not be including information about contact arrangements as this is for yourself and Monica to arrange. If you could provide me with an address to send the completed report to, will of course post you a copy.
Kind regards,
Katy
Katy Ivko
Social worker
South Support Planning Team
3 The Green
Shirley
Solihull
B90 4LA
0121 704 8007 etx 3189
Work mobile: 07795450849
From: Simon Foden [mailto:simon@foden.net]
Sent: 14 October 2014 16:28
To: Ivko, Katy (Adult Social Care – Solihull MBC)
Subject: My son’s report
Hi Katy
Please confirm receipt of my contribution to James’s report which I would like attaching in full. Also, I would be grateful if you could send me a copy of the completed report.
Kind regards
Simon
**********************************************************************
DISCLAIMER:
‘This e-mail and files transmitted with it are confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and delete the message. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Solihull Council unless explicitly stated otherwise. Solihull Council may monitor the contents of e-mail sent and received via its network for the purposes of ensuring compliance with its policies and procedures. The contents of e-mails may have to be disclosed to third parties following a request under legislation such as the Data Protection Act 1998 or the Freedom of Information Act 2000.’
**********************************************************************
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Simon Foden <simon@foden.net>
Date: 20 October 2014 at 15:39
Subject: Re: My son’s report
To: “Ivko, Katy (Adult Social Care – Solihull MBC)” <katyivko@solihull.gov.uk>
Morning Katy
“I will not be including information about contact arrangements as this is for yourself and Monica to arrange”.
Re your assertion above. How can James’s family arrange contact arrangements for James to see his loved ones for brief visits at his place of residence, something that all non incapacitated people are at liberty to do, when Monica keeps going incommunicado? You know she tapered off James’s Skype contact in the 3 months prior to James taking his place at QAC whilst she was busily abusing James by airbrushing his loved ones out of his life in her negligent and false application form for QAC.
At my father’s funeral she put her arms around me to comfort me while I was crying (which was shocking as she’d only ever shown dislike towards me she she left when James was 4 years old) and said she would never try to stop James’s family from seeing James. It is clear now that this was just more of her sweet talking sweet smiled manipulative lies just to make it even more painful when when her scheming plot to abuse a severely vulnerable and helpless young adult by depriving him of his liberty to receive his family at his place of residence came to fruition. She planned this for a long long time!
1 How can James’s family arrange contact arrangements for James to see his loved ones for brief visits at his place of residence, something that all non incapacitated people are at liberty to do, when Monica keeps going incommunicado? She went incommunicado when she set up her campaign of abuse against a defenceless young adult neglecting to tell his residential college about his family and now she has gone incommunicado again because James’s family don”t and will never accept Monica’s point of view that she is above the Mental capacity Act 2005 and therefore is free to make abusive decisions about this incapacitated young individual like false information on his application form and depriving him of his liberty to receive his loved ones as gusts at his place of residence as James’s non incapacitated 19 year old peers can.
2 Is it not your job to prevent Monica from abusing James by her scheming attempts to airbrush James’s family out of his life and reckless non compliance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
On 15 October 2014 14:26, Ivko, Katy (Adult Social Care – Solihull MBC) <katyivko@solihull.gov.uk> wrote:
Hi Simon,
Thank you for your email. I will not be attaching the report in full as when I write up the review I will be incorporating the information provided by all parties, but I am pleased to hear that you feel James’s placement at QAC is working well. As the review will be focused on James and his care while at QAC, I will not be including information about contact arrangements as this is for yourself and Monica to arrange. If you could provide me with an address to send the completed report to, will of course post you a copy.
Kind regards,
Katy
Katy Ivko
Social worker
South Support Planning Team
3 The Green
Shirley
Solihull
B90 4LA
0121 704 8007 etx 3189
Work mobile: 07795450849
From: Simon Foden [mailto:simon@foden.net]
Sent: 14 October 2014 16:28
To: Ivko, Katy (Adult Social Care – Solihull MBC)
Subject: My son’s report
Hi Katy
Please confirm receipt of my contribution to James’s report which I would like attaching in full. Also, I would be grateful if you could send me a copy of the completed report.
Kind regards
Simon
**********************************************************************
DISCLAIMER:
‘This e-mail and files transmitted with it are confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and delete the message. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Solihull Council unless explicitly stated otherwise. Solihull Council may monitor the contents of e-mail sent and received via its network for the purposes of ensuring compliance with its policies and procedures. The contents of e-mails may have to be disclosed to third parties following a request under legislation such as the Data Protection Act 1998 or the Freedom of Information Act 2000.’
**********************************************************************
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Simon Foden <simon@foden.net>
Date: 20 October 2014 at 15:39
Subject: Re: My son’s report
To: “Ivko, Katy (Adult Social Care – Solihull MBC)” <katyivko@solihull.gov.uk>
Morning Katy
“I will not be including information about contact arrangements as this is for yourself and Monica to arrange”.
Re your assertion above. How can James’s family arrange contact arrangements for James to see his loved ones for brief visits at his place of residence, something that all non incapacitated people are at liberty to do, when Monica keeps going incommunicado? You know she tapered off James’s Skype contact in the 3 months prior to James taking his place at QAC whilst she was busily abusing James by airbrushing his loved ones out of his life in her negligent and false application form for QAC.
At my father’s funeral she put her arms around me to comfort me while I was crying (which was shocking as she’d only ever shown dislike towards me she she left when James was 4 years old) and said she would never try to stop James’s family from seeing James. It is clear now that this was just more of her sweet talking sweet smiled manipulative lies just to make it even more painful when when her scheming plot to abuse a severely vulnerable and helpless young adult by depriving him of his liberty to receive his family at his place of residence came to fruition. She planned this for a long long time!
1 How can James’s family arrange contact arrangements for James to see his loved ones for brief visits at his place of residence, something that all non incapacitated people are at liberty to do, when Monica keeps going incommunicado? She went incommunicado when she set up her campaign of abuse against a defenceless young adult neglecting to tell his residential college about his family and now she has gone incommunicado again because James’s family don”t and will never accept Monica’s point of view that she is above the Mental capacity Act 2005 and therefore is free to make abusive decisions about this incapacitated young individual like false information on his application form and depriving him of his liberty to receive his loved ones as gusts at his place of residence as James’s non incapacitated 19 year old peers can.
2 Is it not your job to prevent Monica from abusing James by her scheming attempts to airbrush James’s family out of his life and reckless non compliance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
On 15 October 2014 14:26, Ivko, Katy (Adult Social Care – Solihull MBC) <katyivko@solihull.gov.uk> wrote:
Hi Simon,
Thank you for your email. I will not be attaching the report in full as when I write up the review I will be incorporating the information provided by all parties, but I am pleased to hear that you feel James’s placement at QAC is working well. As the review will be focused on James and his care while at QAC, I will not be including information about contact arrangements as this is for yourself and Monica to arrange. If you could provide me with an address to send the completed report to, will of course post you a copy.
Kind regards,
Katy
Katy Ivko
Social worker
South Support Planning Team
3 The Green
Shirley
Solihull
B90 4LA
0121 704 8007 etx 3189
Work mobile: 07795450849
From: Simon Foden [mailto:simon@foden.net]
Sent: 14 October 2014 16:28
To: Ivko, Katy (Adult Social Care – Solihull MBC)
Subject: My son’s report
Hi Katy
Please confirm receipt of my contribution to James’s report which I would like attaching in full. Also, I would be grateful if you could send me a copy of the completed report.
Kind regards
Simon
**********************************************************************
DISCLAIMER:
‘This e-mail and files transmitted with it are confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and delete the message. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Solihull Council unless explicitly stated otherwise. Solihull Council may monitor the contents of e-mail sent and received via its network for the purposes of ensuring compliance with its policies and procedures. The contents of e-mails may have to be disclosed to third parties following a request under legislation such as the Data Protection Act 1998 or the Freedom of Information Act 2000.’
**********************************************************************
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Simon Foden <simon@foden.net>
Date: 16 October 2014 at 20:07
Subject: Fwd: My son’s report
To: “Ivko, Katy (Adult Social Care – Solihull MBC)” <katyivko@solihull.gov.uk>, Beverley Jessop <bjessop@qac.ac.uk>
Hi Katy
Monica is abusing a severely vulnerable and incapacitated young adult by depriving him of his liberty and breaching section 16.2 of the mental Capacity Act 2005. You are fully aware of what she is doing. Please don’t cover up this abuse by excluding my contribution to James’s report that discloses,in diplomatic terms, how she is abusing a severely vulnerable and incapacitated young adult.
You have a duty of care to James not to cover up how Monica is abusing him by depriving him of his liberty to receive his loved ones as guests at his place of residence therefore please confirm you are including my contribution to James’s report in full which explains the above in more diplomatic terms.
By including my contribution in full I will be completely satisfied that you have done your best to protect James from Monica’s abuse. However, conversely, if you choose to cover up Monica’s abuse my deleting or censoring my contribution then you would be committing an act of professional negligence and James and I would have valid grounds for a professional negligence complaint.
As you don’t appear to have the courage to end this nightmare and tell Monica that the game is up and she can no longer deprive James of his liberty to receive his loved ones at his place of residence then the very least you can do is not cover up the information you are privy to and include my contribution to James’s review in full so that everybody involved in James’s care is aware of how Monica is depriving James of his liberty and the devastating effect this is having on James’s family.
Therefore please confirm you will not be covering up my contribution to James’s review and that, indeed, it will be included in full.
Kind regards
Simon
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Simon Foden <simon@foden.net>
Date: 15 October 2014 17:14
Subject: Re: My son’s report
To: “Ivko, Katy (Adult Social Care – Solihull MBC)” <katyivko@solihull.gov.uk>, Beverley Jessop <bjessop@qac.ac.uk>
Hi Katy
Please post to :
Simon Foden
Omnia One
125 Queen Street
Sheffield
South Yorkshire
S1 2DU
My contribution is not about contact, its about compliance with the law and ensuring that James’s legal rights whilst at QAC are adhered to.It was you yourself who told me to get legal advice. If you dig down into the broad thrust of my contribution to the review it is not about contact arrangements. Its much more to do with the devious and deceptive way Monica had gone out of her way to airbrush James family out of his life. This is there for all to see and nobody can deny her actions. It is nothing to do with contact arrangements. Its almost all about James at QAC in that he, as a severely incapacitated and vulnerable individual, has had decisions taken for him, by a third party that nobody agrees are in his best interests, e.g. neglecting to mention James close bonds with his father, brother Sasha and baby brother Sirus who will be his future carers when his mother and I are no longer around. Anybody can see that 90% of my contribution is about ensuring Monica complies with her obligations under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 during James’s stay at QAC in order to assure that James’s rights under the Act are fully adhered to. Therefore it is all about James at QAC – nothing to do with contact.
James is not only a severely vulnerable and incapacitated young adult, he’s probably one of the most vulnerable and incapacitated young people in Birmingham and the Mental Capacity Act 2005 was drawn up to protect vulnerable incapacitated people just like James from devious and deceptive people just like Monica stitching them up with bad decisions made for them and deprivation of liberty. I believe now that I’ve shed light on Monica’s infractions and lack of compliance with the Act that my contribution is a pertinent and important contribution to the review of James at QAC because QAC is a good institution and they would not want to fall into the trap Monica has set them by goading them to break the Act and deprive James – a severely vulnerable and incapacitated young adult – of his liberty.
My contribution is important to ensure legal compliance by all parties in James’s care, including social services to ensure that they all comply with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and ensure that James’s rights under the Act are adhered to. I believe, that with the knowledge Social Services now have of how Monica has clearly broken the the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and has gone out of her way to deprive a severely vulnerable and incapacitated person of his liberty (words from a barrister’s mouth) it would be negligent of Social Services to exclude such important information about James at QAC from his report. Therefore please include my contribution about James at QAC in full.
I hope that by James’s second report about him at QAC I will be able to report in my contribution that his rights under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 are fully adhered to. However this is clearly not the case right now and James has suffered clear breaches, by Monica, of his rights under the Act during the last couple of months including his first month at QAC and he has the right for this important information to be included in his report in order to help everybody learn from past breaches of the Act and ensure that James rights under the Act are adhered to going forward.
Therefore, again, for James, please include my contribution about James and legal compliance of all individuals in his care at QAC in full. There is nothing sinister in my contribution its just an accurate and informative piece about how James’s legal rights as an incapacitated person have been breached by Monica and how she has goaded QAC to breach them too. As far as I can ascertain, certainly regarding Skype, QAC have not taken Monica’s bate. Only Monica does sinister with her devious and deceptive ways whereas, conversely I just do accurate and informative contributions that shed light on legal compliance and there is nothing sinister in that. Therefore please include my contribution about James at QAC in full.
Kind regards
Simon
On 15 October 2014 14:26, Ivko, Katy (Adult Social Care – Solihull MBC) <katyivko@solihull.gov.uk> wrote:
Hi Simon,
Thank you for your email. I will not be attaching the report in full as when I write up the review I will be incorporating the information provided by all parties, but I am pleased to hear that you feel James’s placement at QAC is working well. As the review will be focused on James and his care while at QAC, I will not be including information about contact arrangements as this is for yourself and Monica to arrange. If you could provide me with an address to send the completed report to, will of course post you a copy.
Kind regards,
Katy
Katy Ivko
Social worker
South Support Planning Team
3 The Green
Shirley
Solihull
B90 4LA
0121 704 8007 etx 3189
Work mobile: 07795450849
From: Simon Foden [mailto:simon@foden.net]
Sent: 14 October 2014 16:28
To: Ivko, Katy (Adult Social Care – Solihull MBC)
Subject: My son’s report
Hi Katy
Please confirm receipt of my contribution to James’s report which I would like attaching in full. Also, I would be grateful if you could send me a copy of the completed report.
Kind regards
Simon
**********************************************************************
DISCLAIMER:
‘This e-mail and files transmitted with it are confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and delete the message. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Solihull Council unless explicitly stated otherwise. Solihull Council may monitor the contents of e-mail sent and received via its network for the purposes of ensuring compliance with its policies and procedures. The contents of e-mails may have to be disclosed to third parties following a request under legislation such as the Data Protection Act 1998 or the Freedom of Information Act 2000.’
**********************************************************************
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Simon Foden <simon@foden.net>
Date: 15 October 2014 at 17:18
Subject: Reminder of my contribution James at QAC – please attach in full to report as explained in last email.
To: “Ivko, Katy (Adult Social Care – Solihull MBC)” <katyivko@solihull.gov.uk>, Beverley Jessop <bjessop@qac.ac.uk>
Katy
Please attach the following as my contribution to the report:
I’m delighted my son has a place at QAC and he seems to have settled in very well. During the first contact via Skype James had only been at the college a few days and he looked a little tired and confused. He hadn’t seen his Dad (who he usually calls Simon as he called his Nanny Jeany and his Granddad Arthur – he’s always been very relaxed with his family) and baby brother Sirus on Skype for over 7 weeks due to his mother’s unilateral breaking off of contact and refusal to set up Skype calls at this time and this probably added to his confusion. During this chat I reassured James that we would see him every two weeks on Skype and would visit him at his school in November and December during this year’s trip to Birmingham. In the second Skype contact James was his normal bubbly self and he appeared very well, happy and alert.
As a result of Monica’s criminal infractions of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 whereby she has made a deliberate and devious attempt (to yourself based on your initial communication with me and to QAC based on James’s application form) to airbrush James’s past and future family support network out of his life (she knows we see him regularly on Skype and visit him for a couple of months every year) I am now a named contact for James at QAC representing his soon to be 3 brothers one of whom lives in Solihull and his uncle David who also lives in Solihull. I was appointed a contact by the Mental Capacity Act 2005 which is a higher authority than Monica.
Monica’s attempt to airbrush James’s past and future support network out of his life contravened section 16.2 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 which clearly states that Monica is only allowed to take a decision for an incapacitated person if she takes the decision in the incapacitated person’s very best interests. Well, by neglecting to mention James’s paternal family who Monica left James with until 7pm every weekday and every other weekend for most of his life and his 9 year old brother Sasha who grew up with James she could not have been more negligent as far as her obligations to comply with the Act are concerned to ensure James rights under the Act to receive his family as visitors at his new residence and to keep up the close bonds with Sasha and Sirus who will one day be his only family and who James will need to keep an eye on him and visit him. These are James rights and Monica must adhere to them. She is not above the law.
The Mental Capacity Act 2005 also makes it clear that Monica must, in no way, deprive James of his liberty to receive his family as guests for short visits to QAC where James resides and to go for days out with his family during their annual 2 month stays in Birmingham.
Monica’s devious infractions have turned what should have been an exclusively happy “right of passage” for James into a very distressing nightmare of unnecessary introductions, explanations, search for legal advice and unnecessary embarrassment with social services and QAC. She must never be allowed to do this again and, in future, it is paramount that whatever institution James resides at I or one of his other paternal family members must always be one of James’s named contacts. This in the only way to ensure that Monica complies with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and that ALL of James’s rights under the Act to have ALL his decisions made in his best interests and to NOT be deprived of his liberty to receive his family as guests are fully adhered to.
Kind regards
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Simon Foden <simon@foden.net>
Date: 15 October 2014 at 17:18
Subject: Reminder of my contribution James at QAC – please attach in full to report as explained in last email.
To: “Ivko, Katy (Adult Social Care – Solihull MBC)” <katyivko@solihull.gov.uk>, Beverley Jessop <bjessop@qac.ac.uk>
Katy
Please attach the following as my contribution to the report:
I’m delighted my son has a place at QAC and he seems to have settled in very well. During the first contact via Skype James had only been at the college a few days and he looked a little tired and confused. He hadn’t seen his Dad (who he usually calls Simon as he called his Nanny Jeany and his Granddad Arthur – he’s always been very relaxed with his family) and baby brother Sirus on Skype for over 7 weeks due to his mother’s unilateral breaking off of contact and refusal to set up Skype calls at this time and this probably added to his confusion. During this chat I reassured James that we would see him every two weeks on Skype and would visit him at his school in November and December during this year’s trip to Birmingham. In the second Skype contact James was his normal bubbly self and he appeared very well, happy and alert.
As a result of Monica’s criminal infractions of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 whereby she has made a deliberate and devious attempt (to yourself based on your initial communication with me and to QAC based on James’s application form) to airbrush James’s past and future family support network out of his life (she knows we see him regularly on Skype and visit him for a couple of months every year) I am now a named contact for James at QAC representing his soon to be 3 brothers one of whom lives in Solihull and his uncle David who also lives in Solihull. I was appointed a contact by the Mental Capacity Act 2005 which is a higher authority than Monica.
Monica’s attempt to airbrush James’s past and future support network out of his life contravened section 16.2 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 which clearly states that Monica is only allowed to take a decision for an incapacitated person if she takes the decision in the incapacitated person’s very best interests. Well, by neglecting to mention James’s paternal family who Monica left James with until 7pm every weekday and every other weekend for most of his life and his 9 year old brother Sasha who grew up with James she could not have been more negligent as far as her obligations to comply with the Act are concerned to ensure James rights under the Act to receive his family as visitors at his new residence and to keep up the close bonds with Sasha and Sirus who will one day be his only family and who James will need to keep an eye on him and visit him. These are James rights and Monica must adhere to them. She is not above the law.
The Mental Capacity Act 2005 also makes it clear that Monica must, in no way, deprive James of his liberty to receive his family as guests for short visits to QAC where James resides and to go for days out with his family during their annual 2 month stays in Birmingham.
Monica’s devious infractions have turned what should have been an exclusively happy “right of passage” for James into a very distressing nightmare of unnecessary introductions, explanations, search for legal advice and unnecessary embarrassment with social services and QAC. She must never be allowed to do this again and, in future, it is paramount that whatever institution James resides at I or one of his other paternal family members must always be one of James’s named contacts. This in the only way to ensure that Monica complies with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and that ALL of James’s rights under the Act to have ALL his decisions made in his best interests and to NOT be deprived of his liberty to receive his family as guests are fully adhered to.
Kind regards
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Simon Foden <simon@foden.net>
Date: 14 October 2014 at 22:28
Subject: My son’s report
To: “Ivko, Katy (Adult Social Care – Solihull MBC)” <katyivko@solihull.gov.uk>
Hi Katy
Please confirm receipt of my contribution to James’s report which I would like attaching in full. Also, I would be grateful if you could send me a copy of the completed report.
Kind regards
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Simon Foden <simon@foden.net>
Date: 14 October 2014 at 22:11
Subject: RE: JF
To: “Ivko, Katy (Adult Social Care – Solihull MBC)” <katyivko@solihull.gov.uk>
Hi Katy.
Thank you.
Please attach the following as my contribution to the report:
I’m delighted my son has a place at QAC and he seems to have settled in very well. During the first contact via Skype James had only been at the college a few days and he looked a little tired and confused. He hadn’t seen his Dad (who he usually calls Simon as he called his Nanny Jeany and his Granddad Arthur – he’s always been very relaxed with his family) and baby brother Sirus on Skype for over 7 weeks due to his mother’s unilateral breaking off of contact and refusal to set up Skype calls at this time and this probably added to his confusion. During this chat I reassured James that we would see him every two weeks on Skype and would visit him at his school in November and December during this year’s trip to Birmingham. In the second Skype contact James was his normal bubbly self and he appeared very well, happy and alert.
As a result of Monica’s criminal infractions of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 whereby she has made a deliberate and devious attempt (to yourself based on your initial communication with me and to QAC based on James’s application form) to airbrush James’s past and future family support network out of his life (she knows we see him regularly on Skype and visit him for a couple of months every year) I am now a named contact for James at QAC representing his soon to be 3 brothers one of whom lives in Solihull and his uncle David who also lives in Solihull. I was appointed a contact by the Mental Capacity Act 2005 which is a higher authority than Monica.
Monica’s attempt to airbrush James’s past and future support network out of his life contravened section 16.2 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 which clearly states that Monica is only allowed to take a decision for an incapacitated person if she takes the decision in the incapacitated person’s very best interests. Well, by neglecting to mention James’s paternal family who Monica left James with until 7pm every weekday and every other weekend for most of his life and his 9 year old brother Sasha who grew up with James she could not have been more negligent as far as her obligations to comply with the Act are concerned to ensure James rights under the Act to receive his family as visitors at his new residence and to keep up the close bonds with Sasha and Sirus who will one day be his only family and who James will need to keep an eye on him and visit him. These are James rights and Monica must adhere to them. She is not above the law.
The Mental Capacity Act 2005 also makes it clear that Monica must, in no way, deprive James of his liberty to receive his family as guests for short visits to QAC where James resides and to go for days out with his family during their annual 2 month stays in Birmingham.
Monica’s devious infractions have turned what should have been an exclusively happy “right of passage” for James into a very distressing nightmare of unnecessary introductions, explanations, search for legal advice and unnecessary embarrassment with social services and QAC. She must never be allowed to do this again and, in future, it is paramount that whatever institution James resides at I or one of his other paternal family members must always be one of James’s named contacts. This in the only way to ensure that Monica complies with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and that ALL of James’s rights under the Act to have ALL his decisions made in his best interests and to NOT be deprived of his liberty to receive his family as guests are fully adhered to.
Kind regards
Simon
From: Ivko, Katy (Adult Social Care – Solihull MBC) [mailto:katyivko@solihull.gov.uk]
Sent: 14 October 2014 20:13
To: ‘simon@foden.net’
Subject: JF
Hi Simon,
I hope you are well. As James has now been at QAC for approximately four weeks I am completing a short review to see how he is getting on there. The review is focused on how James has settled into QAC and I wondered if you would like to add anything to this from your point of view?
Kind regards,
Katy
Katy Ivko
Social worker
South Support Planning Team
3 The Green
Shirley
Solihull
B90 4LA
0121 704 8007 etx 3189
Work mobile: 07795450849
**********************************************************************
DISCLAIMER:
‘This e-mail and files transmitted with it are confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and delete the message. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Solihull Council unless explicitly stated otherwise. Solihull Council may monitor the contents of e-mail sent and received via its network for the purposes of ensuring compliance with its policies and procedures. The contents of e-mails may have to be disclosed to third parties following a request under legislation such as the Data Protection Act 1998 or the Freedom of Information Act 2000.’
**********************************************************************
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Simon Foden <simon@foden.net>
Date: 29 September 2014 at 15:31
Subject: FW: Fwd: James
To: Beverley Jessop <bjessop@qac.ac.uk>, katyivko@solihull.gov.uk, Monica Ryder <monica.ryder@btinternet.com>
Hi Beverley
Monica’s resumption of communication last week included no apology for her reckless breaking the Mental Capacity Act 2005 by embarking on a ruthless campaign to airbrush my son’s lifelong past and future support network out of his life by unilaterally tapering off his regular Skype communication with his paternal family prior to making herself completely incommunicado necessitating the contact of Social Services to ensure ascertain where he was and that he was safe and well, refusing to mention the existence of his family and embarrassing the college by not making his family authorised contacts. Not only did she not apologise for the distress and frustration she unnecessarily imposed on James’s family she proceeded in a feeble and failed attempt to discredit them. Monica has also caused embarrassment with Katy, James’s social worker forcing her to stay neutral and request James’s family take legal advice.
As you know we have followed the social worker’s advice and the barrister advising us has made it clear that the only barrier to James’s family being contacts for him at QAC is Monica and he asserted she is breaking clause 16.2 of the mental capacity Act 2005 by depriving a severely incapacitated and vulnerable young man of his liberty to receive his lifelong and growing family of father, and 2 brothers, a third on the way, one of whom grew up with him as visitors at his new residential college. This is proof, beyond all reasonable doubt that the only barrier to James receiving his visitors is breaking the law therefore I maintain in the strongest possible terms that this illegal barrier has now been removed!!! The law is a great leveller.
Nobody has ever doubted the severity of my son’s immense incapacity and vulnerability. Monica has recently asserted that her days as one of James’s carers are limited and that James’s future lies in state care and with his family airbrushed out of his life so he’s totally dependent on third party carers while his brothers grow up not knowing where there fun loving incapacitated brother is. My barrister and I have proven that such ruthless action against an severely incapacitated person is totally illegal under the above Act of Parliament on not one but two counts: Deprivation of Liberty and Making a Decision for a Severely Incapacitated and Vulnerable Person Against Their Best Interests. We have proved beyond all reasonable doubt that my son’s future in state care will be better for him with his brothers never having lost contact with him so that they can strengthen, not weaken as Monica is trying to do, their bonds with James so that when he’s on his own in a state care home his three siblings (including the one due in April) will be available to James for visits, for company, to bring his nephews to visit him to be welfare deputies for him at the Court of Protection.
James’s needs the support of QAC to make sure that his future in state care runs smoothly with his future carers ALL there for him, not airbrushed out or bonds illegally weakened at this critical stage in his care as Monica is trying to illegally do. It is paramount that everybody helps James make this transition with his whole family onside and with him every step of the way so that we can reassure him how important the college is for him to be as independent as he can be in his supported new life and, MOST OF ALL reassure him that his father, brother Sasha, brother Sirus , and new brother or sister due in April will always come to visit him and be company for him long after Monica and I are no longer around.
Therefore, we have complied with the social workers request to get legal advice and through this we have removed the only barrier (an illegal barrier) to James family being names as contacts at for James Arthur Henry Foden at QAC . Therefore please add Simon Arthur Foden, Alexander (Sasha) Simon Foden and Sirus Arthur Foden as contacts for James during his stay at QAC So that James’s rights under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 are fully adhered to.
Kind regards
Simon
From: Simon Foden [mailto:simon@foden.net]
Sent: 26 September 2014 22:54
To: Beverley Jessop; katyivko@solihull.gov.uk; Monica Ryder
Subject: FW: Fwd: James
Hi Beverley
The contact we recently agreed is satisfactory and still stands. I’m not looking to modify it. Monica is forbidden under the Mental Capacity Act to deprive my severely incapacitated son of his liberty to receive family visits and enjoy normal family days out with his young and growing family, that as you know, he’s enjoyed all of his life. These brothers will one day be all he has. This point alone is sufficient to stop her ruthless and reckless attempts to circumvent the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and cause further embarrassment at Queen Alexandra College.
I’ve requested Monica stop embarrassing QAC by leaning on the college to break the very law that was designed to protect vulnerable young adults from people like her who are happy to deprive such severely incapacitated young adults of their liberty and take decisions, for them, that are not in their best interests.
Kind regards
Simon
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Simon Foden <simon@foden.net>
Date: 29 September 2014 at 21:27
Subject: Re: Fwd: James
To: Monica Ryder <monica.ryder@btinternet.com>, Beverley Jessop <bjessop@qac.ac.uk>, “Katy Ivko (Adult Social Care – Solihull MBC)” <katyivko@solihull.gov.uk>
Monica
The devious way you’ve behaved in the last 3 months has been very distressing.
You cannot dismiss the Mental Capacity Act 2005 as a rant. You also cannot dismiss your obligations under the Act and your compliance with your obligations regarding any decisions decisions you make for James and his rights to see his family at whatever institution he resides at will always require that one of his paternal family will be a named contact. As with QAC, if you don’t make a member of his paternal family a contact then the Mental Capacity 2005 will so please don’t do this again with any other institutions.
I’m very proud of James being at QAC and I want his stays at whatever local institution he resides in to be a success and his paternal family will do everything required to bring this about but now we know James has the protection of the Mental Capacity Act we will always take for granted that we are named contacts.
We will be happy to see James as much as we can in his school holidays plus the days already agreed with QAC. This being the revised list to account for you preferring to avoid Monday evening bus rides.
Now please end this nightmare and let everybody to move on and take care of James.
Simon
On 29 Sep 2014 20:23, “Monica Ryder” <monica.ryder@btinternet.com> wrote:
Simon
I don’t want to talk to you when you’re ranting like this.
Do you realise that all this is about 3 days that I’m asking you to see James during the holiday instead of college time (15 and 29 November and 13 December)? It’s the same number of days overall so I can’t understand what your problem is. I said quite clearly that I’m happy for you to make up for any time during the holiday.
Monica
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Simon Foden <simon@foden.net>
Date: 29 September 2014 at 21:27
Subject: Re: Fwd: James
To: Monica Ryder <monica.ryder@btinternet.com>, Beverley Jessop <bjessop@qac.ac.uk>, “Katy Ivko (Adult Social Care – Solihull MBC)” <katyivko@solihull.gov.uk>
Monica
The devious way you’ve behaved in the last 3 months has been very distressing.
You cannot dismiss the Mental Capacity Act 2005 as a rant. You also cannot dismiss your obligations under the Act and your compliance with your obligations regarding any decisions decisions you make for James and his rights to see his family at whatever institution he resides at will always require that one of his paternal family will be a named contact. As with QAC, if you don’t make a member of his paternal family a contact then the Mental Capacity 2005 will so please don’t do this again with any other institutions.
I’m very proud of James being at QAC and I want his stays at whatever local institution he resides in to be a success and his paternal family will do everything required to bring this about but now we know James has the protection of the Mental Capacity Act we will always take for granted that we are named contacts.
We will be happy to see James as much as we can in his school holidays plus the days already agreed with QAC. This being the revised list to account for you preferring to avoid Monday evening bus rides.
Now please end this nightmare and let everybody to move on and take care of James.
Simon
On 29 Sep 2014 20:23, “Monica Ryder” <monica.ryder@btinternet.com> wrote:
Simon
I don’t want to talk to you when you’re ranting like this.
Do you realise that all this is about 3 days that I’m asking you to see James during the holiday instead of college time (15 and 29 November and 13 December)? It’s the same number of days overall so I can’t understand what your problem is. I said quite clearly that I’m happy for you to make up for any time during the holiday.
Monica
From: Simon Foden <simon@foden.net>
To: Beverley Jessop <bjessop@qac.ac.uk>; katyivko@solihull.gov.uk; Monica Ryder <monica.ryder@btinternet.com>
Sent: Monday, 29 September 2014, 9:31
Subject: FW: Fwd: James
Hi Beverley
Monica’s resumption of communication last week included no apology for her reckless breaking the Mental Capacity Act 2005 by embarking on a ruthless campaign to airbrush my son’s lifelong past and future support network out of his life by unilaterally tapering off his regular Skype communication with his paternal family prior to making herself completely incommunicado necessitating the contact of Social Services to ensure ascertain where he was and that he was safe and well, refusing to mention the existence of his family and embarrassing the college by not making his family authorised contacts. Not only did she not apologise for the distress and frustration she unnecessarily imposed on James’s family she proceeded in a feeble and failed attempt to discredit them. Monica has also caused embarrassment with Katy, James’s social worker forcing her to stay neutral and request James’s family take legal advice.
As you know we have followed the social worker’s advice and the barrister advising us has made it clear that the only barrier to James’s family being contacts for him at QAC is Monica and he asserted she is breaking clause 16.2 of the mental capacity Act 2005 by depriving a severely incapacitated and vulnerable young man of his liberty to receive his lifelong and growing family of father, and 2 brothers, a third on the way, one of whom grew up with him as visitors at his new residential college. This is proof, beyond all reasonable doubt that the only barrier to James receiving his visitors is breaking the law therefore I maintain in the strongest possible terms that this illegal barrier has now been removed!!! The law is a great leveller.
Nobody has ever doubted the severity of my son’s immense incapacity and vulnerability. Monica has recently asserted that her days as one of James’s carers are limited and that James’s future lies in state care and with his family airbrushed out of his life so he’s totally dependent on third party carers while his brothers grow up not knowing where there fun loving incapacitated brother is. My barrister and I have proven that such ruthless action against an severely incapacitated person is totally illegal under the above Act of Parliament on not one but two counts: Deprivation of Liberty and Making a Decision for a Severely Incapacitated and Vulnerable Person Against Their Best Interests. We have proved beyond all reasonable doubt that my son’s future in state care will be better for him with his brothers never having lost contact with him so that they can strengthen, not weaken as Monica is trying to do, their bonds with James so that when he’s on his own in a state care home his three siblings (including the one due in April) will be available to James for visits, for company, to bring his nephews to visit him to be welfare deputies for him at the Court of Protection.
James’s needs the support of QAC to make sure that his future in state care runs smoothly with his future carers ALL there for him, not airbrushed out or bonds illegally weakened at this critical stage in his care as Monica is trying to illegally do. It is paramount that everybody helps James make this transition with his whole family onside and with him every step of the way so that we can reassure him how important the college is for him to be as independent as he can be in his supported new life and, MOST OF ALL reassure him that his father, brother Sasha, brother Sirus , and new brother or sister due in April will always come to visit him and be company for him long after Monica and I are no longer around.
Therefore, we have complied with the social workers request to get legal advice and through this we have removed the only barrier (an illegal barrier) to James family being names as contacts at for James Arthur Henry Foden at QAC . Therefore please add Simon Arthur Foden, Alexander (Sasha) Simon Foden and Sirus Arthur Foden as contacts for James during his stay at QAC So that James’s rights under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 are fully adhered to.
Kind regards
Simon
From: Simon Foden [mailto:simon@foden.net]
Sent: 26 September 2014 22:54
To: Beverley Jessop; katyivko@solihull.gov.uk; Monica Ryder
Subject: FW: Fwd: James
Hi Beverley
The contact we recently agreed is satisfactory and still stands. I’m not looking to modify it. Monica is forbidden under the Mental Capacity Act to deprive my severely incapacitated son of his liberty to receive family visits and enjoy normal family days out with his young and growing family, that as you know, he’s enjoyed all of his life. These brothers will one day be all he has. This point alone is sufficient to stop her ruthless and reckless attempts to circumvent the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and cause further embarrassment at Queen Alexandra College.
I’ve requested Monica stop embarrassing QAC by leaning on the college to break the very law that was designed to protect vulnerable young adults from people like her who are happy to deprive such severely incapacitated young adults of their liberty and take decisions, for them, that are not in their best interests.
Kind regards
Simon
From: Simon Foden [mailto:simon@foden.net]
Sent: 26 September 2014 20:45
To: Monica Ryder; Beverley Jessop; Ivko, Katy (Adult Social Care – Solihull MBC)
Subject: Re: Fwd: James
Monica
The answer is still no!!!
Please stop embarrassing my son’s new college with your illegal requests to stop a severely incapacitated and vulnerable young adult from receiving visits from his lifelong past and future support network.
Please stop trying to force QAC to break the Mental Capacity Act 2005 by acting against a severely incapacitated and vulnerable young adult’s best interests and depriving him of his liberty to receive visits from his growing family of past and future carers and enjoy his normal contact with them. QAC is an institution that helps the vulnerable and incapacitated and you are trying to force them to deprive one of their student’s of their liberty and take decisions against their best interests. This is an outrage. Please stop this outrageous behaviour now!!!
You admitted in your email yesterday that when you and I die James will have nobody but the state to care for him. This is because you are neither able or willing to provide brothers and sisters to watch over James in the future. You left that task to me. Sasha grew up with James. They have a close bond. In a few years Sasha will be able to visit James on his own in whatever care home he is in at the time. James loves Sirus very much and you told me yourself how much he loves babies. Well when we visit James for 2 months in 2015 he will have a new baby brother or even sister as well as brother Sirus and brother Sasha. Making cheap jibes that James’s 3 siblings have 2 different mothers just shows how desperately weak and pathetic your argument that James cannot receive family visits at his new residence is.
Your whole raison D’etre in recent months has been to airbrush James’s growing family of past and future carers out of his life. Totally illegally, totally against both the letter and the spirit of the section 16.2 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 which protects the vulnerable from people like you who take decisions for them on their behalf against their best interests. You are proving yourself not only to be a criminal with no respect for the law but also my severely incapacitated and vulnerable son’s worst enemy.
In order to get through to James’s on Skype when he resided with you, I had to first to get past you as gatekeeper and many times you were unwilling to answer you telephone to set up the Skype video call. Later you changed your number and forced me to contact social services for a Health and Safety check to ascertain where my son was and if he was OK.
Now Skype has contact has been resumed at QAC this is nolonger an issue.
The barrister who advised me said that residing abroad for 10 months of the year is not a barrier to me being one of James’s personal welfare deputies at the court of protection and you are welcome to become one too. I asked this question “Does living abroad for 10 months of the year disqualify me from being one of my incapacitated sons Deputies at the Court of Protection. My barrister replied absolutely not!!! I asked “Does it disqualify me from seeing my son during normal contact hours at his new residential college”? My barrister replied absolutely not!!!
It appears that the only barrier for my son receiving visits from his family of past and future carers at his new residential college is his criminal mother who is riding roughshod over the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Nobody else in the world would consider it in my son’s best interests, particularly as you said yourself he will one day be on his own in state care, for him to be denied less than normal (since age 12) contact with his growing paternal family and future support network of at least 3 younger siblings. Less than normal contact would weaken James’s siblings’ bonds with James and that is just not in James’s best interests simply because when he’s on his own in a state care home his three siblings will be very very useful to him for visits, for company, to bring his nephews to visit him to be welfare deputies for him at the Court of Protection,
I would like Sasha and Sirus to take over from you and I as James’s deputies when we are no longer able to care for him. You have failed to provide James with any blood family. To facilitate this James contact with his family is paramount. I don’t anticipate living abroad 10 months of the year forever. A time will come when the UK housing market will become affordable once more and when it is I as James father, Cherma his step mum, brother Sirus and James’s new sibling due to be born in April will be able to either care for James or pay him regular visits in a local care home. James’s brother Sasha is already in Solihull. The care home option for the future is no problem for me as long as James has at least one deputy at the Court of Protection from his paternal family who James has spent so much time with as he grew up to keep an eye on him.
I cannot water down the number of times James sees his family in November and December because time is precious but I can substitute Monday evenings for an extra Saturday every two weeks during our holiday to visit James. Therefore here is an alternative schedule to meet Monica’s request not to take James out on Monday evenings:
James’s family arrive in England Friday November 7th
Take James on day out with brothers Sasha and Sirus Saturday November 8th
Take James on day out with brothers Sasha and Sirus Sunday November 9th
Take James on day out with brothers Sasha and Sirus Saturday November 15th
Take James on day out with brothers Sasha and Sirus Saturday November 22nd
Take James on day out with brothers Sasha and Sirus Sunday November 23rd
Take James on day out with brothers Sasha and Sirus Saturday November 29th
Take James on day out with brothers Sasha and Sirus Saturday December 6th
Take James on day out with brothers Sasha and Sirus Sunday December 7th
Take James on day out with brothers Sasha and Sirus Saturday November 13th
Take James on day out with brothers Sasha and Sirus Saturday December 20th
Take James on day out with brothers Sasha and Sirus Sunday December 21st
Take James on day out with brothers Sasha and Sirus Saturday November 27th
Plus just one or two additional weekdays in school holidays. During last year’s trip Wednesdays were added into the same schedule.
Please note: under section 16.2 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 it is illegal for anybody to take a decision for a severely incapacitated person that is not in the person’s best interests and that airbrushing an incapacitated person’s lifelong and growing past and future family support network out of his life or denying him family visits at his residential college is about a far against his best interests as you can get. You are not above this United Kingdom Law and as such you are not legally able to take such a bad decision against my severely incapacitated son’s best interests. You are also forbidden under the Act to deprive my son of his liberty to receive family visits and enjoy normal family days out he’s enjoyed all of his life. This point alone is sufficient to stop your reckless attempts to circumvent the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and cause further embarrassment at Queen Alexandra College.
Simon
——— Forwarded message ———-
From: Simon Foden <simon@foden.net>
Date: 29 September 2014 at 15:31
Subject: FW: Fwd: James
To: Beverley Jessop <bjessop@qac.ac.uk>, katyivko@solihull.gov.uk, Monica Ryder <monica.ryder@btinternet.com>
Hi Beverley
Monica’s resumption of communication last week included no apology for her reckless breaking the Mental Capacity Act 2005 by embarking on a ruthless campaign to airbrush my son’s lifelong past and future support network out of his life by unilaterally tapering off his regular Skype communication with his paternal family prior to making herself completely incommunicado necessitating the contact of Social Services to ensure ascertain where he was and that he was safe and well, refusing to mention the existence of his family and embarrassing the college by not making his family authorised contacts. Not only did she not apologise for the distress and frustration she unnecessarily imposed on James’s family she proceeded in a feeble and failed attempt to discredit them. Monica has also caused embarrassment with Katy, James’s social worker forcing her to stay neutral and request James’s family take legal advice.
As you know we have followed the social worker’s advice and the barrister advising us has made it clear that the only barrier to James’s family being contacts for him at QAC is Monica and he asserted she is breaking clause 16.2 of the mental capacity Act 2005 by depriving a severely incapacitated and vulnerable young man of his liberty to receive his lifelong and growing family of father, and 2 brothers, a third on the way, one of whom grew up with him as visitors at his new residential college. This is proof, beyond all reasonable doubt that the only barrier to James receiving his visitors is breaking the law therefore I maintain in the strongest possible terms that this illegal barrier has now been removed!!! The law is a great leveller.
Nobody has ever doubted the severity of my son’s immense incapacity and vulnerability. Monica has recently asserted that her days as one of James’s carers are limited and that James’s future lies in state care and with his family airbrushed out of his life so he’s totally dependent on third party carers while his brothers grow up not knowing where there fun loving incapacitated brother is. My barrister and I have proven that such ruthless action against an severely incapacitated person is totally illegal under the above Act of Parliament on not one but two counts: Deprivation of Liberty and Making a Decision for a Severely Incapacitated and Vulnerable Person Against Their Best Interests. We have proved beyond all reasonable doubt that my son’s future in state care will be better for him with his brothers never having lost contact with him so that they can strengthen, not weaken as Monica is trying to do, their bonds with James so that when he’s on his own in a state care home his three siblings (including the one due in April) will be available to James for visits, for company, to bring his nephews to visit him to be welfare deputies for him at the Court of Protection.
James’s needs the support of QAC to make sure that his future in state care runs smoothly with his future carers ALL there for him, not airbrushed out or bonds illegally weakened at this critical stage in his care as Monica is trying to illegally do. It is paramount that everybody helps James make this transition with his whole family onside and with him every step of the way so that we can reassure him how important the college is for him to be as independent as he can be in his supported new life and, MOST OF ALL reassure him that his father, brother Sasha, brother Sirus , and new brother or sister due in April will always come to visit him and be company for him long after Monica and I are no longer around.
Therefore, we have complied with the social workers request to get legal advice and through this we have removed the only barrier (an illegal barrier) to James family being names as contacts at for James Arthur Henry Foden at QAC . Therefore please add Simon Arthur Foden, Alexander (Sasha) Simon Foden and Sirus Arthur Foden as contacts for James during his stay at QAC So that James’s rights under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 are fully adhered to.
Kind regards
Simon
From: Simon Foden [mailto:simon@foden.net]
Sent: 26 September 2014 22:54
To: Beverley Jessop; katyivko@solihull.gov.uk; Monica Ryder
Subject: FW: Fwd: James
Hi Beverley
The contact we recently agreed is satisfactory and still stands. I’m not looking to modify it. Monica is forbidden under the Mental Capacity Act to deprive my severely incapacitated son of his liberty to receive family visits and enjoy normal family days out with his young and growing family, that as you know, he’s enjoyed all of his life. These brothers will one day be all he has. This point alone is sufficient to stop her ruthless and reckless attempts to circumvent the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and cause further embarrassment at Queen Alexandra College.
I’ve requested Monica stop embarrassing QAC by leaning on the college to break the very law that was designed to protect vulnerable young adults from people like her who are happy to deprive such severely incapacitated young adults of their liberty and take decisions, for them, that are not in their best interests.
Kind regards
Simon
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Simon Foden <simon@foden.net>
Date: 26 September 2014 at 22:53
Subject: FW: Fwd: James
To: Beverley Jessop <bjessop@qac.ac.uk>, katyivko@solihull.gov.uk, Monica Ryder <monica.ryder@btinternet.com>
Hi Beverley
The contact we recently agreed is satisfactory and still stands. I’m not looking to modify it. Monica is forbidden under the Mental Capacity Act to deprive my severely incapacitated son of his liberty to receive family visits and enjoy normal family days out with his young and growing family, that as you know, he’s enjoyed all of his life. These brothers will one day be all he has. This point alone is sufficient to stop her ruthless and reckless attempts to circumvent the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and cause further embarrassment at Queen Alexandra College.
I’ve requested Monica stop embarrassing QAC by leaning on the college to break the very law that was designed to protect vulnerable young adults from people like her who are happy to deprive such severely incapacitated young adults of their liberty and take decisions, for them, that are not in their best interests.
Kind regards
Simon
From: Simon Foden [mailto:simon@foden.net]
Sent: 26 September 2014 20:45
To: Monica Ryder; Beverley Jessop; Ivko, Katy (Adult Social Care – Solihull MBC)
Subject: Re: Fwd: James
Monica
The answer is still no!!!
Please stop embarrassing my son’s new college with your illegal requests to stop a severely incapacitated and vulnerable young adult from receiving visits from his lifelong past and future support network.
Please stop trying to force QAC to break the Mental Capacity Act 2005 by acting against a severely incapacitated and vulnerable young adult’s best interests and depriving him of his liberty to receive visits from his growing family of past and future carers and enjoy his normal contact with them. QAC is an institution that helps the vulnerable and incapacitated and you are trying to force them to deprive one of their student’s of their liberty and take decisions against their best interests. This is an outrage. Please stop this outrageous behaviour now!!!
You admitted in your email yesterday that when you and I die James will have nobody but the state to care for him. This is because you are neither able or willing to provide brothers and sisters to watch over James in the future. You left that task to me. Sasha grew up with James. They have a close bond. In a few years Sasha will be able to visit James on his own in whatever care home he is in at the time. James loves Sirus very much and you told me yourself how much he loves babies. Well when we visit James for 2 months in 2015 he will have a new baby brother or even sister as well as brother Sirus and brother Sasha. Making cheap jibes that James’s 3 siblings have 2 different mothers just shows how desperately weak and pathetic your argument that James cannot receive family visits at his new residence is.
Your whole raison D’etre in recent months has been to airbrush James’s growing family of past and future carers out of his life. Totally illegally, totally against both the letter and the spirit of the section 16.2 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 which protects the vulnerable from people like you who take decisions for them on their behalf against their best interests. You are proving yourself not only to be a criminal with no respect for the law but also my severely incapacitated and vulnerable son’s worst enemy.
In order to get through to James’s on Skype when he resided with you, I had to first to get past you as gatekeeper and many times you were unwilling to answer you telephone to set up the Skype video call. Later you changed your number and forced me to contact social services for a Health and Safety check to ascertain where my son was and if he was OK.
Now Skype has contact has been resumed at QAC this is nolonger an issue.
The barrister who advised me said that residing abroad for 10 months of the year is not a barrier to me being one of James’s personal welfare deputies at the court of protection and you are welcome to become one too. I asked this question “Does living abroad for 10 months of the year disqualify me from being one of my incapacitated sons Deputies at the Court of Protection. My barrister replied absolutely not!!! I asked “Does it disqualify me from seeing my son during normal contact hours at his new residential college”? My barrister replied absolutely not!!!
It appears that the only barrier for my son receiving visits from his family of past and future carers at his new residential college is his criminal mother who is riding roughshod over the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Nobody else in the world would consider it in my son’s best interests, particularly as you said yourself he will one day be on his own in state care, for him to be denied less than normal (since age 12) contact with his growing paternal family and future support network of at least 3 younger siblings. Less than normal contact would weaken James’s siblings’ bonds with James and that is just not in James’s best interests simply because when he’s on his own in a state care home his three siblings will be very very useful to him for visits, for company, to bring his nephews to visit him to be welfare deputies for him at the Court of Protection,
I would like Sasha and Sirus to take over from you and I as James’s deputies when we are no longer able to care for him. You have failed to provide James with any blood family. To facilitate this James contact with his family is paramount. I don’t anticipate living abroad 10 months of the year forever. A time will come when the UK housing market will become affordable once more and when it is I as James father, Cherma his step mum, brother Sirus and James’s new sibling due to be born in April will be able to either care for James or pay him regular visits in a local care home. James’s brother Sasha is already in Solihull. The care home option for the future is no problem for me as long as James has at least one deputy at the Court of Protection from his paternal family who James has spent so much time with as he grew up to keep an eye on him.
I cannot water down the number of times James sees his family in November and December because time is precious but I can substitute Monday evenings for an extra Saturday every two weeks during our holiday to visit James. Therefore here is an alternative schedule to meet Monica’s request not to take James out on Monday evenings:
James’s family arrive in England Friday November 7th
Take James on day out with brothers Sasha and Sirus Saturday November 8th
Take James on day out with brothers Sasha and Sirus Sunday November 9th
Take James on day out with brothers Sasha and Sirus Saturday November 15th
Take James on day out with brothers Sasha and Sirus Saturday November 22nd
Take James on day out with brothers Sasha and Sirus Sunday November 23rd
Take James on day out with brothers Sasha and Sirus Saturday November 29th
Take James on day out with brothers Sasha and Sirus Saturday December 6th
Take James on day out with brothers Sasha and Sirus Sunday December 7th
Take James on day out with brothers Sasha and Sirus Saturday November 13th
Take James on day out with brothers Sasha and Sirus Saturday December 20th
Take James on day out with brothers Sasha and Sirus Sunday December 21st
Take James on day out with brothers Sasha and Sirus Saturday November 27th
Plus just one or two additional weekdays in school holidays. During last year’s trip Wednesdays were added into the same schedule.
Please note: under section 16.2 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 it is illegal for anybody to take a decision for a severely incapacitated person that is not in the person’s best interests and that airbrushing an incapacitated person’s lifelong and growing past and future family support network out of his life or denying him family visits at his residential college is about a far against his best interests as you can get. You are not above this United Kingdom Law and as such you are not legally able to take such a bad decision against my severely incapacitated son’s best interests. You are also forbidden under the Act to deprive my son of his liberty to receive family visits and enjoy normal family days out he’s enjoyed all of his life. This point alone is sufficient to stop your reckless attempts to circumvent the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and cause further embarrassment at Queen Alexandra College.
Simon
On 26 September 2014 18:45, Monica Ryder <monica.ryder@btinternet.com> wrote:
Simon
- Please stop trying to push the college to grant you more access than what I agree to. I am the main carer and they need authorisation from me to allow anyone to see James. I have explained what the plans are for James. A lot of thought and effort have gone into addressing James’ future. A significant number of visits to a variety of colleges, assessments, paperwork, meetings, calls, negotiation all to try and get the right solution for James. We have had to work very hard to help James deal with the changes. I do not think it is helpful for James or in his interest to change this because you’ve visiting.
- At no time have we hidden your existence from QAC, so far they had focused on James and we have not been asked about other people. Dominic and myself are there as contacts. I think you have to be realistic that in your current circumstances you are not realistically in a position to provide ongoing support or be available on site if the situation requires it. If you really want to consider James best interests then I think you have to accept that you need to fit in with what is planned. You were last in UK in June/July 2013. It has already been more than 15 months since you last saw James, so I understand your desire to see him. Also given the short amount of time you have in the UK I can understand you wanting as much time with James as possible. That all said, I have explained the need to help James gain greater independence. I need you to work within the boundaries I set. My suggestion is still the same. You can see James on the weekends I have outlined and we can make arrangements for what happens during the holiday period so you’d be able to see more of him then.
3.I haven’t “decided” to stop contact with you. According to my Skype history, you have called James 3 times between March and August 2014: 13 March, 15 May, 4 July. You missed James’ birthday on 19 July altogether: no call, no card, no present. Next time you tried to get in touch was 24 August and got upset because I didn’t reply to your email straightaway. This is why when my mobile phone contract finished and Skype kept crashing, getting in touch with you was low on my priority list. Do not accuse me of stopping contact when you yourself made no attempt to get in touch over that period, not even for your son’s birthday.
3.You may be happy for me to look after James’ property and affairs when you are abroad. The reality is that is what I always do whether you are here or not. I haven’t decided to move abroad, I don’t have multiple children by multiple partners, I just have James. It is his interests I will put first. I have done everything in my power to try to ensure his future has certainty. I want you to fit in with those plans please.
Monica
From: Simon Foden <simon@foden.net>
To: Beverley Jessop <bjessop@qac.ac.uk>; ‘Monica Ryder’ <monica.ryder@btinternet.com>; “Ivko, Katy (Adult Social Care – Solihull MBC)” <katyivko@solihull.gov.uk>
Sent: Thursday, 25 September 2014, 12:16
Subject: Fwd: James
Hi Beverley
Monica is ccd.
Monica’s assertions below that James will need lifetime care are nothing more than common sense based on his physical abnormalities i.e. malformed brain and small brain. Nobody would ever dispute that. However, her assertion that the only future option for him will be state care with minimal family contact does not stand up to scrutiny. James has a growing family of father and lifelong carer, brother Sasha who grew up with James and brother Sirus who will grow up with James at least two months of the year.
I would like Sasha and Sirus to take over from Monica and I as James’s deputies when we are no longer able to care for him. To facilitate this James contact with his family is paramount. I don’t anticipate living abroad 10 months of the year forever. A time will come when the UK housing market will become affordable once more and when it is I as James father, Cherma his step mum, brother Sirus and James’s new sibling due to be born in April will be able to either care for James or pay him regular visits in a local care home. James’s brother Sasha is already in Solihull. The care home option for the future is no problem for me as long as James has at least one deputy at the Court of Protection from his paternal family who James has spent so much time with as he grew up to keep an eye on him.
I cannot water down the number of times James sees his family in November and December because time is precious but I can substitute Monday evenings for an extra Saturday every two weeks during our holiday to visit James. Therefore here is an alternative schedule to meet Monica’s request not to take James out on Monday evenings:
James’s family arrive in England Friday November 7th
Take James on day out with brothers Sasha and Sirus Saturday November 8th
Take James on day out with brothers Sasha and Sirus Sunday November 9th
Take James on day out with brothers Sasha and Sirus Saturday November 15th
Take James on day out with brothers Sasha and Sirus Saturday November 22nd
Take James on day out with brothers Sasha and Sirus Sunday November 23rd
Take James on day out with brothers Sasha and Sirus Saturday November 29th
Take James on day out with brothers Sasha and Sirus Saturday December 6th
Take James on day out with brothers Sasha and Sirus Sunday December 7th
Take James on day out with brothers Sasha and Sirus Saturday November 13th
Take James on day out with brothers Sasha and Sirus Saturday December 20th
Take James on day out with brothers Sasha and Sirus Sunday December 21st
Take James on day out with brothers Sasha and Sirus Saturday November 27th
Plus just one or two additional weekdays in school holidays. During last year’s trip Wednesdays were added into the same schedule.
Please note: under section 16.2 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 it is illegal for anybody to take a decision for a severely incapacitated person that is not in the person’s best interests and that airbrushing an incapacitated person’s lifelong and growing past and future family support network out of his life or denying him family visits at his residential college is about a far against his best interests as you can get. Monica is not above this United Kingdom Law and as such she is not legally able to take such a bad decision against my severely incapacitated son’s best interests.
Kind regards
Simon
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Simon Foden <simon@foden.net>
Date: 24 September 2014 20:11
Subject: Re: James
To: Monica Ryder <monica.ryder@btinternet.com>
Hi Monica
I’m pleased you have resumed contact and to receive your email. Your game of changing your mobile number, not answering Skype, forgetting to mention James’s lifelong and growing family support network (grandparent’s deceased, father and two brothers with a third sibling due in April) to QAC has been very stressful and I’m noy happy about how you’ve behaved.
I had to request a Health and Safety check with my extremely incapacitated and vulnerable son’s social worker in order to ascertain where he was and if he was ok. Katy explained where James was I’ve arranged James’s Skype and actual contact directly with the QAC. I had explain to them that under section 16.2 of the Metal Capacity Act 2005 it is illegal for anybody to take a decision for a severely incapacitated person that was not in the person’s best interests and that airbrushing an incapacitated person’s lifelong and growing past and future family support network out of his life was about a far against his best interests as you could get. QAC accept this and and contact based on how it has been since James was 12 years old has been agreed.
I explained to QAC that Sasha and Sirus and James’s new sibling will one day be the only family he has left.
Katy the social worker refused to get involved re James contact and she recommended that I take legal advice. The barrister who advised me said I need to be a “joint deputy” with the Court of Protection with you for my son’s personal welfare.so that I can be a named contact for my son at his new college. I.e. James personal Welfare deputies should be Simon Arthur Foden and Camelia Monica Ryder both of equal status for personal welfare. As I’m abroad for 10 months of the year I’m content for you take responsibility for my son’s property and affairs. I.e You will be James’s Property and Affairs deputy to look after James benefits in James’s best interests.
I’m not prepared to water down the amount of contact James has with his family based on previous years but I am prepared to be flexible with the dates. I’m happy to substitute the Monday evenings with an extra day at the weekend when we’re not scheduled to visit James. So one weekend it will be one day only the next weekend it will be two days. I think this will be better than Monday evenings.
I trust this is satisfactory.
Simon
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Simon Foden <simon@foden.net>
Date: 25 September 2014 at 18:16
Subject: Fwd: James
To: Beverley Jessop <bjessop@qac.ac.uk>, Monica Ryder <monica.ryder@btinternet.com>, “Ivko, Katy (Adult Social Care – Solihull MBC)” <katyivko@solihull.gov.uk>
Hi Beverley
Monica is ccd.
Monica’s assertions below that James will need lifetime care are nothing more than common sense based on his physical abnormalities i.e. malformed brain and small brain. Nobody would ever dispute that. However, her assertion that the only future option for him will be state care with minimal family contact does not stand up to scrutiny. James has a growing family of father and lifelong carer, brother Sasha who grew up with James and brother Sirus who will grow up with James at least two months of the year.
I would like Sasha and Sirus to take over from Monica and I as James’s deputies when we are no longer able to care for him. To facilitate this James contact with his family is paramount. I don’t anticipate living abroad 10 months of the year forever. A time will come when the UK housing market will become affordable once more and when it is I as James father, Cherma his step mum, brother Sirus and James’s new sibling due to be born in April will be able to either care for James or pay him regular visits in a local care home. James’s brother Sasha is already in Solihull. The care home option for the future is no problem for me as long as James has at least one deputy at the Court of Protection from his paternal family who James has spent so much time with as he grew up to keep an eye on him.
I cannot water down the number of times James sees his family in November and December because time is precious but I can substitute Monday evenings for an extra Saturday every two weeks during our holiday to visit James. Therefore here is an alternative schedule to meet Monica’s request not to take James out on Monday evenings:
James’s family arrive in England Friday November 7th
Take James on day out with brothers Sasha and Sirus Saturday November 8th
Take James on day out with brothers Sasha and Sirus Sunday November 9th
Take James on day out with brothers Sasha and Sirus Saturday November 15th
Take James on day out with brothers Sasha and Sirus Saturday November 22nd
Take James on day out with brothers Sasha and Sirus Sunday November 23rd
Take James on day out with brothers Sasha and Sirus Saturday November 29th
Take James on day out with brothers Sasha and Sirus Saturday December 6th
Take James on day out with brothers Sasha and Sirus Sunday December 7th
Take James on day out with brothers Sasha and Sirus Saturday November 13th
Take James on day out with brothers Sasha and Sirus Saturday December 20th
Take James on day out with brothers Sasha and Sirus Sunday December 21st
Take James on day out with brothers Sasha and Sirus Saturday November 27th
Plus just one or two additional weekdays in school holidays. During last year’s trip Wednesdays were added into the same schedule.
Please note: under section 16.2 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 it is illegal for anybody to take a decision for a severely incapacitated person that is not in the person’s best interests and that airbrushing an incapacitated person’s lifelong and growing past and future family support network out of his life or denying him family visits at his residential college is about a far against his best interests as you can get. Monica is not above this United Kingdom Law and as such she is not legally able to take such a bad decision against my severely incapacitated son’s best interests.
Kind regards
Simon
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Simon Foden <simon@foden.net>
Date: 24 September 2014 20:11
Subject: Re: James
To: Monica Ryder <monica.ryder@btinternet.com>
Hi Monica
I’m pleased you have resumed contact and to receive your email. Your game of changing your mobile number, not answering Skype, forgetting to mention James’s lifelong and growing family support network (grandparent’s deceased, father and two brothers with a third sibling due in April) to QAC has been very stressful and I’m noy happy about how you’ve behaved.
I had to request a Health and Safety check with my extremely incapacitated and vulnerable son’s social worker in order to ascertain where he was and if he was ok. Katy explained where James was I’ve arranged James’s Skype and actual contact directly with the QAC. I had explain to them that under section 16.2 of the Metal Capacity Act 2005 it is illegal for anybody to take a decision for a severely incapacitated person that was not in the person’s best interests and that airbrushing an incapacitated person’s lifelong and growing past and future family support network out of his life was about a far against his best interests as you could get. QAC accept this and and contact based on how it has been since James was 12 years old has been agreed.
I explained to QAC that Sasha and Sirus and James’s new sibling will one day be the only family he has left.
Katy the social worker refused to get involved re James contact and she recommended that I take legal advice. The barrister who advised me said I need to be a “joint deputy” with the Court of Protection with you for my son’s personal welfare.so that I can be a named contact for my son at his new college. I.e. James personal Welfare deputies should be Simon Arthur Foden and Camelia Monica Ryder both of equal status for personal welfare. As I’m abroad for 10 months of the year I’m content for you take responsibility for my son’s property and affairs. I.e You will be James’s Property and Affairs deputy to look after James benefits in James’s best interests.
I’m not prepared to water down the amount of contact James has with his family based on previous years but I am prepared to be flexible with the dates. I’m happy to substitute the Monday evenings with an extra day at the weekend when we’re not scheduled to visit James. So one weekend it will be one day only the next weekend it will be two days. I think this will be better than Monday evenings.
I trust this is satisfactory.
Simon
On 24 September 2014 18:55, Monica Ryder <monica.ryder@btinternet.com> wrote:
Hi Simon,
I’ve seen that you are coming across to the UK in November and December and obviously want to spend some time with James. I have seen the dates you are thinking of. Can I ask that when you want to make arrangements to see James that you always contact me, regardless of whether he is at home or at college so that we can coordinate what is happening.
James has a full residential placement at QAC. What that means is that James is funded to be at QAC both during the week and during the weekend for all term time. During the main and half-term holidays he will be at home. It might help to explain why I have James doing this rather than being say a day student or being part-time residential (where he would come home every weekend). We both know that it is very likely that throughout James’ life he will always need to be supported, especially because of the epilepsy but also because of the range of things he will need assistance with and above all, to ensure he is always safe. Clearly, one day we will both be dead and unable to fulfil this role, and even before that there will come a point when I am too old to cope. So at some point in his life, James will need to be in some sort of supported accommodation. In addition, although James has friends, unless there is frequent contact with them, there is a strong risk that James will become socially isolated, only having contact with family and carers. He also has a very narrow list of activities that he wants to do, going on the bus to visit shops to buy videos and DVDs and bowling being the main ones. To ensure James is happy and healthy, with a varied life and opportunity to interact with peers on a regular basis, James needs to broaden the range of activities he focuses on. It is hard to see James ever working though you never know, even if it is unpaid work. Clearly though, once college has finished he will have lots of hours to fill doing something, so he needs a variety of sustainable things he is willing to do and gets enjoyment from. I believe the easiest way to achieve all of these goals is through the residential placement he currently has.
I hope that the placement will help in the following ways:
- it will help James to become more independent
- I have specifically requested that there is significant focus on fine motor skills so that for many basic skills, James is not so frustrated and dependent on others to assist with vey basic tasks that he is only blocked from doing by his limited fine motor skills
- it will help James to develop a broader network of friends
- it will help James to get interested in a broader, more sustainable set of activities
- it will provide opportunities to see whether James can be involved in any sort of employment or unpaid work
- It will help James to be less dependent on his family so that we are part of his life but not all of his life. I do not want him to be in the situation that we are the only people in his life and once we are gone he is lost without us.
- James still has the capability to learn, so he deserves the opportunity to do so
Most students from Solihull who go to college are unable to get the funding to go fully residential, especially with the budget cuts. Equally many parents are reluctant to let their sons or daughters with disabilities go residential because of the pain to themselves of their children leaving home and because they have got so used to providing for and supporting them 24×7. It is painful doing this but I believe it is the best option for James. I do not want James to stay at home till I can no longer cope or die, when James may be in his 40’s or 50’s and he then has to cope with the transition to supported housing when he is middle-aged. I want to plan for a more gentle transition when he is young and more flexible.
So for this transition to work and for James to get the most out of his 6 terms at college, we are trying to give James enough contact that he is comfortable and happy, but not so much that he fails to develop the independence skills. I want to make sure that he sometimes spend weekends with his friends and not with me. Obviously he has to develop friendships and there have to be activities happening out of study time that are of interest to him. Where that is the case, I want James to sometimes be doing those things rather than spending time at home.
With that approach in mind, I am trying to limit the amount of time that James is with family. I will have to have some flexibility about this in order for him to cope and be happy. It wouldn’t be right to just disappear for a few weeks but equally he has to have a chance to cope on his own. Holiday time is a bit different as he will always be at home, so during that time, the opportunities are different. So when I look at what you are hoping to do, the first thing is that I don’t really want people visiting during week nights. At the weekends i am envisaging that some weekends he will come home, some he will be based at college and have visits (including going out for the day) and other he may not have a visit at all. The pattern of these different types of weekends needs to be varied, partly to ensure changes do not occur to quickly for James but also, so that James does not expect a single pattern that cannot be varied.
So for the dates when you are thinking of spending time with James, then I do not want you visiting on Monday evenings but I think it will be fine for you to take James out on the following weekends:
- Sat 8th and Sun 9th Nov
- Sat 22nd and Sun 23rd Nov
- Sat 6th and Sun 7th Dec
It may be that James is at home or at college. We can liaise about that nearer the time. I am happy to let the college know about these dates if we are in agreement.
From Sat 18th onwards James is at home. You have suggested some dates which I think will be fine, including the Monday evenings. Whilst he is at home for the Christmas break, if there are other dates you have in mind, let me know and we should be able to arrange something.
Thanks
Monica
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Simon Foden <simon@foden.net>
Date: 11 September 2014 at 16:03
Subject: A step in the right direction
To: Beverley Jessop <bjessop@qac.ac.uk>, Andy Dennehy <adennehy@qac.ac.uk>
Hi Beverley
Monica has not only been economical with the truth and misrepresented the facts on the QAC application form she’s also misrepresented the facts to Katy Ivko James’s new social worker so much so that Katy once claimed James has only one carer. Well now that Katy has been armed with the facts of James’s growing family support network who have loved and cared for him all his life she’s distanced herself from that feeble argument and to protect herself she’s now taken a neutral position and declared that social services don’t get involved with adult contact, apparently even if the subject is severely incapacitated and is a victim of a decision taken for him that is absolutely against his best interests in the eyes of all reasonable people.
The social worker has suggested taking legal action to reverse the current injustice of a person taking a life changing decision for a severely incapacitated person that is absolutely against his best interests in the eyes of all reasonable people. However this would be very expensive and only be necessary in the event Monica was be able to present QAC with a reasoned argument as to why it would be in James’s best interests for him to lose actual contact 2 months of the year when his family are in Birmingham (virtual contact via skype is already agreed) with his family, growing family, of past and future carers who have cared for him all his life and some of whom have grown up around him.
Of course Monica cannot present such a reasoned argument therefore legal action is not required in this case. I actually mentioned suing Monica during our last telephone conversation and you said no – don’t do that. I now agree with you that legal action is unnecessary to maintain James actual contact with his family support network during our 2 monthly trips to England to take him for his days out with his brothers and bus rides that he loves so much. When Monica dies I’ll take up James’s care by simply moving back to England with step mom Cherma and brother Sirus. Brother Sasha is already in Solihull. If I’m no longer around when she dies Sasha, Sirus and the new brother or sister due in April will be James’s carers or care contacts. This is far better for James than leaving him with no family to care for him which is Monica’s plan that no reasonable person would agree with.
You emailed me last week to say that James’s contact with his family when they are in England will be resolved quickly and I’ve taken the action you requested which was to email Monica.
I’ve also cleared up the misunderstanding the social worker had formed by the misrepresented facts Monica presented her with therefore please confirm that there are no longer any barriers to James’s normal minimal contact with his family that he’s enjoyed since his birth.
To simplify matters we’re not seeking any additional contact, only minimal contact James has ever had with his family which is every Monday evening, every other weekend and a couple of days in my son’s school holidays. Therefore here is this year’s schedule of actual contact with my son James Foden:
James’s family arrive in England Friday November 7th
Take James on day out with brothers Sasha and Sirus Saturday November 8th
Take James on day out with brothers Sasha and Sirus Sunday November 9th
Take James on bus ride with brothers Sasha and Sirus after school on Monday November 10th
Take James on bus ride with brothers Sasha and Sirus after school on Monday November 17th
Take James on day out with brothers Sasha and Sirus Saturday November 22nd
Take James on day out with brothers Sasha and Sirus Sunday November 23rd
Take James on bus ride with brothers Sasha and Sirus after school on Monday November 24th
Take James on bus ride with brothers Sasha and Sirus after school on Monday December 1st
Take James on day out with brothers Sasha and Sirus Saturday December 6th
Take James on day out with brothers Sasha and Sirus Sunday December 7th
Take James on bus ride with brothers Sasha and Sirus after school on Monday December 8th
Take James on bus ride with brothers Sasha and Sirus after school on Monday December 15th
Take James on day out with brothers Sasha and Sirus Saturday December 20th
Take James on day out with brothers Sasha and Sirus Sunday December 21st
Take James on bus ride with brothers Sasha and Sirus after school on Monday December 22nd
Take James on bus ride with brothers Sasha and Sirus after school on Monday December 29th
Plus just one or two additional weekdays in school holidays. During last year’s trip Wednesdays were added into the same schedule.
Kind regards
Simon
From: Ivko, Katy (Adult Social Care – Solihull MBC) [mailto:katyivko@solihull.gov.uk]
Sent: 10 September 2014 21:03
To: ‘Simon Foden’
Subject: RE: We are half way there
Hi Simon,
Thank you for your emails and I’m sorry not to reply before now – I have just returned from leave.
While I appreciate that it must be very frustrating for you to be trying to maintain contact with James, this is not something I am able to assist with. I understand that you previously had input from James’s social worker when he was under children’s social services but as James is now an adult I am not able to get involved in any issues regarding contact. As I said when we last spoke, this is something a solicitor may be able to help with if you choose to go down that route.
I’m pleased to hear that you agree that QAC will be a good placement for James and I hope he will do very well there.
Kind regards,
Katy
Katy Ivko
Social worker
South Support Planning Team
3 The Green
Shirley
Solihull
B90 4LA
0121 704 8007 etx 3189
Work mobile: 07795450849
From: Simon Foden [mailto:simon@foden.net]
Sent: 10 September 2014 10:56
To: Ivko, Katy (Adult Social Care – Solihull MBC)
Cc: Beverley Jessop; Andy Dennehy
Subject: We are half way there
Importance: High
Hi Katy
We are half way there. QAC have agreed to maintain James normal Skype contact with his family following Monica’s embarrassing and misleading less than truthful application. All that remains is to confirm that James’s normal contact with his growing family of past and future carers that was upheld by his social worker Melody Cobb from 2008 to this day i.e. every Monday evening and every other weekend with a couple of days in school holidays. No reasonable person believes that its in James’s best interests for his lifelong contact with his growing family of past and future carers to be watered down and James is protected under UK mental health laws, due to his lack of capacity, from anybody making such a decision against his best interests.
Therefore please see James’s family below and end this distracting, unhelpful and embarrassing state of confusion at QAC brought about by Monica’s misleading and less than truthful application and confirm that James’s normal contact with his family will continue at QAC so that everybody involved in my son’s care can rally round him and support him in a distraction free environment.
Kind regards
Simon
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Simon Foden <simon@foden.net>
Date: 9 September 2014 at 15:42
Subject: James Protection in law
To: katyivko@solihull.gov.uk
Cc: Beverley Jessop <bjessop@qac.ac.uk>, Andy Dennehy <adennehy@qac.ac.uk>
Hi Katy
My son James is a very is a very vulnerable young adult who does not have capacity to make his own decisions. As such he is totally dependent on others making his decisions for him. When James was 13 years old his former social worker: Melody Cobb upheld his rich contact with his paternal family who Monica delegated day time care to 7pm to care to from birth to 13 years old in order to support her demanding full time job. During this time James younger brother Sasha grew up around him. He also has a new younger brothers called Sirus and there is a 3rd younger brother or sister due in 6 months. James siblings are his future carers when his mother and father are no longer around. Neither James’s mother nor father are immortal and Monica has already outlived her father who died very young of natural causes.
You recently told me that Monica is James current carer. Well this is a position that Monica can only occupy whilst she is alive. As stated above Monica has already outlived her father who died very young of natural causes. When Monica is no longer alive James care will pass to myself as James father and lifelong participant in James care if I am still alive at the time of Monica’s passing. If I am not alive at the time of Monica’s passing then the so called role of James’s “carer” will pass to his younger brothers. They will either be James’s carer or responsible carer contact because they grew up around James. Therefore it is ABSILUTELY NOT IN JAMES BEST INTERESTS FOR HIS CONTACT WITH HIS PATERNAL FAMILY AND YOUNGER SIBLINGS TO BE WATERED DOWN TO LESS THAT IT IS CURRENTLY I.E. every Monday night and every other weekend and a couple of days a week during our annual 2 month visits to Birmingham and his fortnightly contact on Skype during the rest of the year (already agreed with QAC). Eventually we’ll resettle in Birmingham when we have the funds to do so.
James Protection in law:
According to the Mencap website here is my son’s legal position regarding his contact with his young family and I’ve found this: https://www.mencap.org.uk/about-learning-disability/laws-and-rights/consent
James’s clearly doesn’t have the capacity to complain about Monica’s sudden cutting him off from his family that he’s loved and have loved and cared for him for most of his life. Therefore he’s reliant on a family member to correct this current injustice recently imposed upon him.
The law states: “Only people who lack capacity will need to have decisions made for them, and even then they must be made in their best interests”.
The key point here is “and even then they must be made in their best interests”. Well I don’t believe there is a reasonable person alive today who would consider it in my son’s “best interests” for him to be arbitrarily and unilaterally cut off from his growing family and future carers who have loved and cared for him all his life and some of whom have grown up around him.
Therefore questions must be asked of the “reasonableness” of the person who made this cruel arbitrary and unilateral decision completely out of the blue. I believe the majority of reasonable people alive today would simply consider Monica’s unilateral action to be Unreasonable.
James severe mental disability that denies him the capacity to make his own decisions means he is dependent on others making decisions for him. Therefore James rights under the UK mental health laws that any decisions made for him by others due to his lack of capacity must be made in his best interests which is to maintain his normal contact with his family and younger brothers who will be what you call his “carers” when Monica is no longer around.
Therefore please confirm that we can take James on days out with his brothers as usual when were are on holiday in Birmingham in November and December. Normal contact is every Monday evening and every other weekend and a day or two in the school holidays. Last year Monica let us have James on Wednesdays in the school holidays as well as Mondays. She was also reliable at facilitating James Skype contact with his family on average every couple of weeks since April 2012 until she arbitrarily and unilaterally stopped communicating last month.
James is a wonderful but very vulnerable person with a sunny personality and his family just want everybody to rally round him and support him and his new college maintaining his normal contact with his brothers and future carers.
Kind regards
Simon
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Simon Foden <simon@foden.net>
Date: 9 September 2014 at 15:42
Subject: James Protection in law
To: katyivko@solihull.gov.uk
Cc: Beverley Jessop <bjessop@qac.ac.uk>, Andy Dennehy <adennehy@qac.ac.uk>
Hi Katy
My son James is a very is a very vulnerable young adult who does not have capacity to make his own decisions. As such he is totally dependent on others making his decisions for him. When James was 13 years old his former social worker: Melody Cobb upheld his rich contact with his paternal family who Monica delegated day time care to 7pm to care to from birth to 13 years old in order to support her demanding full time job. During this time James younger brother Sasha grew up around him. He also has a new younger brothers called Sirus and there is a 3rd younger brother or sister due in 6 months. James siblings are his future carers when his mother and father are no longer around. Neither James’s mother nor father are immortal and Monica has already outlived her father who died very young of natural causes.
You recently told me that Monica is James current carer. Well this is a position that Monica can only occupy whilst she is alive. As stated above Monica has already outlived her father who died very young of natural causes. When Monica is no longer alive James care will pass to myself as James father and lifelong participant in James care if I am still alive at the time of Monica’s passing. If I am not alive at the time of Monica’s passing then the so called role of James’s “carer” will pass to his younger brothers. They will either be James’s carer or responsible carer contact because they grew up around James. Therefore it is ABSILUTELY NOT IN JAMES BEST INTERESTS FOR HIS CONTACT WITH HIS PATERNAL FAMILY AND YOUNGER SIBLINGS TO BE WATERED DOWN TO LESS THAT IT IS CURRENTLY I.E. every Monday night and every other weekend and a couple of days a week during our annual 2 month visits to Birmingham and his fortnightly contact on Skype during the rest of the year (already agreed with QAC). Eventually we’ll resettle in Birmingham when we have the funds to do so.
James Protection in law:
According to the Mencap website here is my son’s legal position regarding his contact with his young family and I’ve found this: https://www.mencap.org.uk/about-learning-disability/laws-and-rights/consent
James’s clearly doesn’t have the capacity to complain about Monica’s sudden cutting him off from his family that he’s loved and have loved and cared for him for most of his life. Therefore he’s reliant on a family member to correct this current injustice recently imposed upon him.
The law states: “Only people who lack capacity will need to have decisions made for them, and even then they must be made in their best interests”.
The key point here is “and even then they must be made in their best interests”. Well I don’t believe there is a reasonable person alive today who would consider it in my son’s “best interests” for him to be arbitrarily and unilaterally cut off from his growing family and future carers who have loved and cared for him all his life and some of whom have grown up around him.
Therefore questions must be asked of the “reasonableness” of the person who made this cruel arbitrary and unilateral decision completely out of the blue. I believe the majority of reasonable people alive today would simply consider Monica’s unilateral action to be Unreasonable.
James severe mental disability that denies him the capacity to make his own decisions means he is dependent on others making decisions for him. Therefore James rights under the UK mental health laws that any decisions made for him by others due to his lack of capacity must be made in his best interests which is to maintain his normal contact with his family and younger brothers who will be what you call his “carers” when Monica is no longer around.
Therefore please confirm that we can take James on days out with his brothers as usual when were are on holiday in Birmingham in November and December. Normal contact is every Monday evening and every other weekend and a day or two in the school holidays. Last year Monica let us have James on Wednesdays in the school holidays as well as Mondays. She was also reliable at facilitating James Skype contact with his family on average every couple of weeks since April 2012 until she arbitrarily and unilaterally stopped communicating last month.
James is a wonderful but very vulnerable person with a sunny personality and his family just want everybody to rally round him and support him and his new college maintaining his normal contact with his brothers and future carers.
Kind regards
Simon
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Simon Foden <simon@foden.net>
Date: 9 September 2014 at 15:13
Subject: Meet James Foden’s family
To: katyivko@solihull.gov.uk
Cc: Beverley Jessop <bjessop@qac.ac.uk>, Andy Dennehy <adennehy@qac.ac.uk>
Hi Katy (James social worker)
I attach my passport for security purposes.
James’s family all love James very much and we are very much and are very anxious to resume normal contact with James in his new residential college QAC. James’s 10 month a year Skype contact has already been agreed with QAC we’re just waiting for confirmation of his actual days out contact during November and December when his family and future carers will be in Birmingham to spend quality time with their brother James at QAC and in days out. Eventually, when we have the funds we’ll permanently resettle in Birmingham. The only contact sought is the normal contact proposed by James’s previous social worker Melody Cobb when Monica started to participate in James after school care when he was 13. At this time Melody confirmed that Monica’s new outsourced daytime carers were able to able to care for James during a seizure and she upheld James Monday night stop overs with his family and his every other weekend stopovers with his family and a couple of days per week during school holidays and this has continued to the present day. We’ll just be continuing the same were nor seeking extra contact. We just need this confirming at James’s new address at QAC.
Two of James’s carers: Arthur Foden and Jean Foden are already dead sadly passing away from Cancer at the beginning of 2012. Currently James has his father and mother left to care for him and eventually his 9 year old brother Sasha will be able to care for him. James already has his 9 year old brother and future carer Sasha who lives permanently in Solihull and Arthur and Jean Foden have been replaced with Sirus Foden James’s one and a half year old brother and future carer and James will have a new brother or possibly sister and future carer when his step mother Cherma will give birth in April 2015. Monica has already outlived her own father who died very young of natural causes. Therefore when James’s parents are no longer around to care for him and ensure that decisions taken for him by other people adhere to his legal rights to have them taken in his best interests his brothers or brothers and sister will be there to care for him and ensure his legal rights are adhered to. In other words James’s future carers will be his siblings who grew up around him in a loving family environment.
Meet James family:
Sasha grew up with James and here they are when Sasha was a toddler:
James 12th Birthday party video with his family
James with his family at the Think Tank
James’s 18th Birthday Party with his family
James’s 18th Birthday Party with his family 2
James’s 18th Birthday Party with his family 3
James’s 18th Birthday Party with his family Candles
James with his family at soft play
James family waiting for the number 57
James with his family at Nanny and Granddad’s grave
Daddy (James likes to call me Simon), Step Mommy Cherma and brother Baby Si
Brother Sirus 1 month ago
James with Baby Sasha
lease add to my son’s contact list: Simon Arthur Foden (Father), Cherma Dejumo (Step mother), Alexander (Sasha) Simon Foden (James’s 9 year old brother and future care contact when James’s parents are no longer around), and Sirus Arthur Foden (James’s baby brother and future care contact when James’s parents are no longer around ). James will have one more brother , or possibly sister in approximately 6 months’ time who will also be a future care contact for James when James’s parents are no longer around).
Monica has already out lived her father who died of cerebral problems so it’s very important for James relationship with his family, his brothers in particular, to blossom and grow as they will be his only carers or care contacts at some future point when Monica and I are no longer around. Monica and her husband can no longer have children so it’s been left to me provide family for my son to take care of him and keep an eye on him when Monica and I are no longer around.
Please understand this and help to get this current extraordinary unilateral 6 week contact block overturned ASAP so that James’s normal contact with his family can resume.
Kind regards
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Simon Foden <simon@foden.net>
Date: 2 September 2014 at 22:56
Subject: Re: We’re very pleased with James’s new school
To: Monica Ryder <monica.ryder@btinternet.com>, bjessop@qac.ac.uk, “Ivko, Katy (Adult Social Care – Solihull MBC)” <katyivko@solihull.gov.uk>
Hi Monica
Please stop this silly game of cat and mouse you’re playing with James’s family. Even though you signed James up for QAC behind my back I’m still very happy with your choice as its the best choice for James just like I signed James up for Merstone last time round which was also the best choice for James.
Now James need to restore his contact with his paternal family that you have recently unilateral and arbitrarily cut off 6 weeks ago. This is not helping James or his family and is causing distress for James family and embarrassment for staff at James new school. Please call off this silly game and let Beverly add James’s father and brothers to his list of allowed contacts at QAC.
Thanks
Simon
On 2 September 2014 16:28, Monica Ryder <monica.ryder@btinternet.com> wrote:
we were still out – let’s try tomorrow night
From: Simon Foden <simon@foden.net>
To: Monica Ryder <monica.ryder@btinternet.com>
Sent: Monday, 1 September 2014, 18:09
Subject: Re: We’re very pleased with James’s new school
Hi Monica
James is not logged in
Please log into skype
Thanks
Simon
On 29 August 2014 23:29, Monica Ryder <monica.ryder@btinternet.com> wrote:
we’re just about to go out, let’s try on Monday
From: Simon Foden <simon@foden.net>
To: ‘Monica Ryder’ <monica.ryder@btinternet.com>
Sent: Friday, 29 August 2014, 11:23
Subject: We’re very pleased with James’s new school
Hi Monica
We’re very pleased with James’s new residential college QAC. A very good choice – well done!!
Can we see James on Skype this evening please?
Simon
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Simon Foden <simon@foden.net>
Date: 2 September 2014 at 22:38
Subject: Fwd: Concern about the very vulnerable James Foden
To: bjessop@qac.ac.uk
Hi Beverly
Please see Amanda’s kind words from Merstone school below.
It was great to to talk with you about my son James Foden who has spent every Monday night, every other weekend and week day after school to 7pm with his paternal family to the age of 13. The weekends and every Monday nights continued until April 2012 when I returned to Thailand (I have a 2 bedroom apartment their that cost only £45000) following the death of both of my parents from cancer. They died within a month of each other. Since April 2012 I’ve seen James at his Mom’s house mostly every 2 weeks but sometimes every week and never less than once a month.
As of 6 weeks ago Monica has ruled out telephone communication by changing her number therefore I have no channel of communication phone
She also rarely answers emails now other than I can see James tomorrow which she repeats in every email but everybody knows tomorrow never comes.
As I’ve been such an integral part of James life and care for the last 19 years the last 6 weeks of no contact with James have been very hurtful and distressing. Its sad that Monica didn’t involve me in the selection of QAC probably out of revenge for me taking James’s side and agreeing with Solihull council that Merstone school was the best for James which it was and nobody would deny that with hindsight.
That said, Monica’s revenge is not a valid excuse for James to be denied the access to his growing paternal family that he expects and loves. He already has 2 brothers and a third brother (or sister) is on the way. During our 2 monthly stays in England each year we always travel every where by bus because that is James’s favourite means of transport. The cost of the trip is £3000 so we need to make sure that Monica plays ball with James family and reinstate, without delay, James contact by Skype. I also want to add that as Monica and I were married at the time of James’s birth I have always enjoyed full legal parental responsibility.of James – this is something James stepfather Dominic has never had and never will have. I will email Monica now to try and get this resolved as diplomatically as Monica will allow.
Kind regards
Simon Foden (James Foden’s Father)
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Amanda Mordey <s502amordey@merstone.solihull.sch.uk>
Date: 28 August 2014 20:49
Subject: RE: Concern about the very vulnerable James Foden
To: Simon Foden <simon@foden.net>
Dear Simon,
It is good to hear from you – thank you for your message, I will pass onto the staff. James is delightful and a credit to himself and his family. I wish him every success at QAC – I am sure we will keep in touch
Amanda
Amanda Mordey
Principal
Merstone School & Forest Oak School
0121 717 1040
Ofsted 2011 & 2014 “An Outstanding School”
P think before you print
________________________________________
From: Simon Foden [simon@foden.net]
Sent: 28 August 2014 13:15
To: Ivko, Katy (Adult Social Care – Solihull MBC)
Cc: Amanda Mordey
Subject: RE: Concern about the very vulnerable James Foden
Hi Katy
I’ve looked at the QEC in Harborne website and video http://www.qac.ac.uk/college/qac-in-film/17.htm and all I can say is what a fantastic college! This college should build on the progress James made at Merstone school. I particularly like the ICT – perfect for James family contact by Skype. It’s also local enough for us to take James out on bus rides during our annual trips to England and for brother Sasha to visit James.
Message for Amanda
Thank you and thank you to all staff at Merstone for all their help with James. James was a different person almost overnight once he attended Merstone. Mom would have loved to have come to his graduation ceremony
I know she would be pleased about James’s residential place at QEC in Harborne – she said a residential college could be the making of James.
Thanks again
Kind regards
Simon
From: Ivko, Katy (Adult Social Care – Solihull MBC) [mailto:katyivko@solihull.gov.uk<mailto:katyivko@solihull.gov.uk>]
Sent: 28 August 2014 16:09
To: ‘Simon Foden’
Subject: RE: Concern about the very vulnerable James Foden
Hi Simon,
Thank you for your email. I’m aware that you have tried to call me a couple of times and I have just tried to call you back but unfortunately I cannot get through. I believe your contact number does not allow calls from private numbers and that is blocking my call. If you would like to try calling again, I will be in this morning.
I am sorry to hear that you have not been able to get through to Monica. Unfortunately I am not able to facilitate access to either Monica or James. I spoke to Monica earlier this week and she told me that James is doing well so I hope that reassures you. Please do try calling again if you would like to discuss this further. I will be on annual leave after today, returning 10 September.
Kind regards,
Katy
Katy Ivko
Social worker
South Support Planning Team
3 The Green
Shirley
Solihull
B90 4LA
0121 704 8007 etx 3189
Work mobile: 07795450849
________________________________
From: Simon Foden [mailto:simon@foden.net]
Sent: 27 August 2014 16:38
To: Ivko, Katy (Adult Social Care – Solihull MBC)
Subject: FW: Concern about the very vulnerable James Foden
Importance: High
Hi Katy
I’m James Foden’s father and I can’t get through to James’s mother Monica. She’s stopped answering all messages and it looks like shes’s changed her phone number. I’m very worried about my son because he’s so severely disabled being 19 years old with a mental age of less than two.
Normally I see him once a month on Skype but for the last two weeks Monica’s telephone has been unobtainable and and she has stopped responding to email and Skype.
I’ve lived in Thailand since I was bankrupted and made homeless by the property crash in 2008 so I feel very cut off from what ever is happening at the moment with James’s transition from school to a residential care environment.
I asked Monica for James to go to a residential college or similar not too far from Solihull so James’s brother Sasha who lives in Solihull can visit him and my new family (I have a 1 and a half year old boy called Sirus and my girlfriend is expecting one more child) can visit James during our annual trips to England the next one being in November.
Please do a health and safety check on James to ensure he’s ok and his needs are being met and help me to find the most appropriate place for James now he’s finished school. My parents have both sadly died a couple of years ago and my second wife left me when we became homeless in 2008 so I’m much more alone now than during James’s transition from Reynalds Cross to Merstone school which turned out to be a fantastic move for James even though Monica sadly opposed it at the time.
Please help.
Kind regards
Simon
From: Simon Foden [mailto:simon@foden.net<mailto:simon@foden.net>]
Sent: 27 August 2014 22:05
To: mcobb
Subject: Concern about the very vulnerable James Foden
Hi Melodie
I’m very concerned about my severely disabled son: James Foden. Normally I see him once a month on Skype but for the last two weeks Monica’s telephone has been unobtainable and and she has stopped responding to email and Skype.
I’ve lived in Thailand since I was bankrupted and made homeless by the property crash in 2008 so I feel very cut off from what ever is happening at the moment with James’s transition from school to a residential care environment.
I asked Monica for James to go to a residential college or similar not too far from Solihull so James’s brother Sasha who lives in Solihull can visit him and my new family (I have a 1 and a half year old boy called Sirus and my girlfriend is expecting one more child) can visit James during our annual trips to England the next one being in November.
Please do a health and safety check on James to ensure he’s ok and his needs are being met and help me to find the most appropriate place for James now he’s finished school. My parents have both sadly died a couple of years ago and my second wife left me when we became homeless in 2008 so I’m much more alone now than during James’s transition from Reynalds Cross to Merstone school which turned out to be a fantastic move for James even though Monica sadly opposed it at the time.
Please help.
Kind regards
Simon
**********************************************************************
DISCLAIMER:
‘This e-mail and files transmitted with it are confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and delete the message. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Solihull Council unless explicitly stated otherwise. Solihull Council may monitor the contents of e-mail sent and received via its network for the purposes of ensuring compliance with its policies and procedures. The contents of e-mails may have to be disclosed to third parties following a request under legislation such as the Data Protection Act 1998 or the Freedom of Information Act 2000.’
**********************************************************************
******************************************************************
DISCLAIMER:
‘This e-mail and files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient please notify the sender immediately and delete the message. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Solihull Council unless explicitly stated otherwise. Solihull Council may monitor the contents of e-mail sent and received via its network for the purposes of ensuring compliance with its policies and procedures.’
******************************************************************
Dear Karen
I sent you the information you requested. I sent additional info on Friday and some more over the weekend.
Nobody from social services has listened to word I’ve said as far as I can ascertain.
Please confirm James’s complaint against his social worker: Katy Ivco is being looked into. The public have a right to know how she treated James when he was kidnapped and his incapacity abused by Mrs Ryder late last summer aided and abetted by his social worker Katy Ivco. Ms Ivco went out of her way to cover up Mrs Ryder’s abuse in her report therefore Ms Ivco willfully misled Queen Alexandra College to my son’s detriment.
We need to get to the bottom of why Katy Ivco aided and abetted Mrs Ryder to abuse James’s severe incapacity rather than help James by informing Mrs Ryder that she was committing offences under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 section 16 and the Disability Discrimination laws. Until we get to the bottom of this and lessons are learned then the next time Mrs Ryder abuses my son’s incapacity I need to know that Social services will come down on James’s side and take measures to stop Mrs Ryder abusing James instead of aiding and abetting her and facilitating James’ abuse of his incapacity.
Yours sincerely
Dear Karen,
Why did Katy Ivco not reassure me, at the time I reported him missing for several weeks, that Mrs Ryder was abusing James incapacity by committing serious offences under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, Section 16 and the Disability Discrimination laws and that Solihull Social Services has a zero tolerance policy of abuse of seriously incapacitated and vulnerable young adults and Social Services will immediately inform Mrs Ryder of her offences under the above Acts of Parliament with a view to stopping her offending by abusing James’s incapacity to deprive him of his loved ones who he grew up with and who grew up with him?
If Katy Ivco had done her job and advised me of this then the problem would have been solved back in early autumn last year and I would not have lost the best part of 10 months of my life advancing James case to all of the professionals involved in his care because Katy Ivco simply refused to do her Job.
You can clearly see that Katy Ivco’s initial reply to my missing person report was – to paraphrase – Dear Mr F, Mrs Ryder is James’s carer and, as such, if she wants to commit serious offences under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, Section 16, and abuse a seriously incapacitated and defenseless young adult’s incapacity to deprive him of his loved ones who he grew up with and who grew up with him she is she is perfectly free to do so and Solihull Social Services have a policy of ignoring the abuse of seriously incapacitated and vulnerable young adults therefore Solihull Council will take no action whatsoever to inhibit Mrs Ryder from committing serious offences against a seriously incapacitated and vulnerable young adult.
This is proof beyond all reasonable doubt that Katy Ivco is a professionally negligent social worker.
A non professionally negligent response to my missing person’s report would have been:
Dear Mr F
Mrs Ryder has clearly been committing serious offences under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, Section 16 and the Disability Discrimination laws to illegally deprive a seriously vulnerable, incapacitated and defenceless young adult of his loved ones who he grew up with and who grew up with him and, as Solihull Council has a Zero Tolerance policy of abuse of Seriously incapacitated young adults, the Council, via Social Services will take immediate action to inform Mrs Ryder of her offences under the above Acts and Social Services will require Mrs Ryder to desist all acts of abuse against James going forward and James’s new residential College will be informed of Mrs Ryder’s abuse to date.
This is an example of a non professionally negligent response that Katy Ivco could have made if she was serious about not being professionally negligent.
However, sadly, only the professionally negligent response above was ever received. Even after Katy Ivco herself advised me to take legal advice – the advice I received from my barrister that Mrs Ryder was committing serious abuse offences against a seriously incapacitated vulnerable young adult’s incapacity was simply ignored!!
Therefore Katy Ivco’s professionally Negligent renegade behavior as a Social Worker is totally unacceptable and the general public have a right to know about it.
Yours sincerely
Hi Karen
Katy Ivco not only covered up a cogent barrister derived report of how Mrs was actively abusing James’s incapacity and committing offences under multiple UK laws Ms Ivco actually aided and abetted Mrs Ryder further by allowing her to write a total pack of lies about James as the mother’s contribution. I’s plain to see from James’s medical report that he simply does not have the capacity to make complex decisions such as “do you want to see Sasha”. When Mrs Ryder used “James said he doesn’t want to see Sasha” as an excuse to abuse James by depriving him of a great time with Sasha during our 2 month trip to bring the kids together James said on the Sunday “no Sasha, no Sasha”! I replied to James- “that right no Sasha today – we had Sasha yesterday when you didn’t come out” James exclaimed “Oh No”, “Oh No”! . This is the clearest evidence possible and totally congruent with James’s medical report that Katy Ivco actually permitted Mrs Ryder to write a complete pack of lies about James as the so called “carer’s contribution” whilst simultaneously covering up the father’s cogent barrister derived contribution that exposed Mrs Ryder’s abuse. Therefore Katy Ivco actually and willfully Aided and Abetted Mrs Ryder to Abuse James’s incapacity. This forms a significant part of my complaint against Katy Ivco and Solihull Social Services.
Please see reports below:
Yours sincerely
Simon
——— Forwarded message ———-
From: Simon Date: 15 May 2015 at 22:30
Subject: James’s Social Worker Report Attached
To: kmillard@solihull.gov.uk
Hi Karen
Please see James’s Social Worker’s report attached. I’ve also attached his Medical Report and I’m sure you’ll agree that its clear that Social Worker Katy Ivco did her client, James, a massive disservice by covering up my cogent barrister derived parental contribution / information that exposed how Mrs Ryder was, in plain sight of (and aided and abetted by) Solihull Social services was abusing James’s incapacity to illegally under section 16 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Disability Discrimination laws deprive him of his loved one who he grew up with and who grew up with him:
Hi Katy
Please post to :
Simon
My contribution is not about contact, its about compliance with the law and ensuring that James’s legal rights whilst at QAC are adhered to.It was you yourself who told me to get legal advice. If you dig down into the broad thrust of my contribution to the review it is not about contact arrangements. Its much more to do with the devious and deceptive way Monica had gone out of her way to airbrush James family out of his life. This is there for all to see and nobody can deny her actions. It is nothing to do with contact arrangements. Its almost all about James at QAC in that he, as a severely incapacitated and vulnerable individual, has had decisions taken for him, by a third party that nobody agrees are in his best interests, e.g. neglecting to mention James close bonds with his father, brother Sasha and baby brother Sirus who will be his future carers when his mother and I are no longer around. Anybody can see that 90% of my contribution is about ensuring Monica complies with her obligations under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 during James’s stay at QAC in order to assure that James’s rights under the Act are fully adhered to. Therefore it is all about James at QAC – nothing to do with contact.
James is not only a severely vulnerable and incapacitated young adult, he’s probably one of the most vulnerable and incapacitated young people in Birmingham and the Mental Capacity Act 2005 was drawn up to protect vulnerable incapacitated people just like James from devious and deceptive people just like Monica stitching them up with bad decisions made for them and deprivation of liberty. I believe now that I’ve shed light on Monica’s infractions and lack of compliance with the Act that my contribution is a pertinent and important contribution to the review of James at QAC because QAC is a good institution and they would not want to fall into the trap Monica has set them by goading them to break the Act and deprive James – a severely vulnerable and incapacitated young adult – of his liberty.
My contribution is important to ensure legal compliance by all parties in James’s care, including social services to ensure that they all comply with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and ensure that James’s rights under the Act are adhered to. I believe, that with the knowledge Social Services now have of how Monica has clearly broken the the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and has gone out of her way to deprive a severely vulnerable and incapacitated person of his liberty (words from a barrister’s mouth) it would be negligent of Social Services to exclude such important information about James at QAC from his report. Therefore please include my contribution about James at QAC in full.
I hope that by James’s second report about him at QAC I will be able to report in my contribution that his rights under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 are fully adhered to. However this is clearly not the case right now and James has suffered clear breaches, by Monica, of his rights under the Act during the last couple of months including his first month at QAC and he has the right for this important information to be included in his report in order to help everybody learn from past breaches of the Act and ensure that James rights under the Act are adhered to going forward.
Therefore, again, for James, please include my contribution about James and legal compliance of all individuals in his care at QAC in full. There is nothing sinister in my contribution its just an accurate and informative piece about how James’s legal rights as an incapacitated person have been breached by Monica and how she has goaded QAC to breach them too. As far as I can ascertain, certainly regarding Skype, QAC have not taken Monica’s bate. Only Monica does sinister with her devious and deceptive ways whereas, conversely I just do accurate and informative contributions that shed light on legal compliance and there is nothing sinister in that. Therefore please include my contribution about James at QAC in full.
Kind regards
Simon
On 15 October 2014 14:26, Ivko, Katy (Adult Social Care – Solihull MBC) <katyivko@solihull.gov.uk> wrote:
Hi Simon,
Thank you for your email. I will not be attaching the report in full as when I write up the review I will be incorporating the information provided by all parties, but I am pleased to hear that you feel James’s placement at QAC is working well. As the review will be focused on James and his care while at QAC, I will not be including information about contact arrangements as this is for yourself and Monica to arrange. If you could provide me with an address to send the completed report to, will of course post you a copy.
Kind regards,
Katy
Katy Ivko
Social worker
South Support Planning Team
3 The Green
Shirley
Solihull
B90 4LA
0121 704 8007 etx 3189
Work mobile: 07795450849
Father’s contribution that exposed Mrs Ryder’s abuse of a seriously vulnerable and incapacitated young adult that was covered up by Social Worker Katy Ivco:
Hi Katy.
Thank you.
Please attach the following as my contribution to the report:
I’m delighted my son has a place at QAC and he seems to have settled in very well. During the first contact via Skype James had only been at the college a few days and he looked a little tired and confused. He hadn’t seen his Dad (who he usually calls Simon as he called his Nanny Jeany and his Granddad Arthur – he’s always been very relaxed with his family) and baby brother Sirus on Skype for over 7 weeks due to his mother’s unilateral breaking off of contact and refusal to set up Skype calls at this time and this probably added to his confusion. During this chat I reassured James that we would see him every two weeks on Skype and would visit him at his school in November and December during this year’s trip to Birmingham. In the second Skype contact James was his normal bubbly self and he appeared very well, happy and alert.
As a result of Monica’s criminal infractions of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 whereby she has made a deliberate and devious attempt (to yourself based on your initial communication with me and to QAC based on James’s application form) to airbrush James’s past and future family support network out of his life (she knows we see him regularly on Skype and visit him for a couple of months every year) I am now a named contact for James at QAC representing his soon to be 3 brothers one of whom lives in Solihull and his uncle David who also lives in Solihull. I was appointed a contact by the Mental Capacity Act 2005 which is a higher authority than Monica.
Monica’s attempt to airbrush James’s past and future support network out of his life contravened section 16.2 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 which clearly states that Monica is only allowed to take a decision for an incapacitated person if she takes the decision in the incapacitated person’s very best interests. Well, by neglecting to mention James’s paternal family who Monica left James with until 7pm every weekday and every other weekend for most of his life and his 9 year old brother Sasha who grew up with James she could not have been more negligent as far as her obligations to comply with the Act are concerned to ensure James rights under the Act to receive his family as visitors at his new residence and to keep up the close bonds with Sasha and Sirus who will one day be his only family and who James will need to keep an eye on him and visit him. These are James rights and Monica must adhere to them. She is not above the law.
The Mental Capacity Act 2005 also makes it clear that Monica must, in no way, deprive James of his liberty to receive his family as guests for short visits to QAC where James resides and to go for days out with his family during their annual 2 month stays in Birmingham.
Monica’s devious infractions have turned what should have been an exclusively happy “right of passage” for James into a very distressing nightmare of unnecessary introductions, explanations, search for legal advice and unnecessary embarrassment with social services and QAC. She must never be allowed to do this again and, in future, it is paramount that whatever institution James resides at I or one of his other paternal family members must always be one of James’s named contacts. This in the only way to ensure that Monica complies with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and that ALL of James’s rights under the Act to have ALL his decisions made in his best interests and to NOT be deprived of his liberty to receive his family as guests are fully adhered to.
Kind regards
Hi Karen
Please see James’s Social Worker’s report attached. I’ve also attached his Medical Report and I’m sure you’ll agree that its clear that Social Worker Katy Ivco did her client, James, a massive disservice by covering up my cogent barrister derived parental contribution / information that exposed how Mrs Ryder was, in plain sight of (and aided and abetted by) Solihull Social services was abusing James’s incapacity to illegally under section 16 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Disability Discrimination laws deprive him of his loved one who he grew up with and who grew up with him:
Hi Katy
Please post to :
Simon
My contribution is not about contact, its about compliance with the law and ensuring that James’s legal rights whilst at QAC are adhered to.It was you yourself who told me to get legal advice. If you dig down into the broad thrust of my contribution to the review it is not about contact arrangements. Its much more to do with the devious and deceptive way Monica had gone out of her way to airbrush James family out of his life. This is there for all to see and nobody can deny her actions. It is nothing to do with contact arrangements. Its almost all about James at QAC in that he, as a severely incapacitated and vulnerable individual, has had decisions taken for him, by a third party that nobody agrees are in his best interests, e.g. neglecting to mention James close bonds with his father, brother Sasha and baby brother Sirus who will be his future carers when his mother and I are no longer around. Anybody can see that 90% of my contribution is about ensuring Monica complies with her obligations under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 during James’s stay at QAC in order to assure that James’s rights under the Act are fully adhered to. Therefore it is all about James at QAC – nothing to do with contact.
James is not only a severely vulnerable and incapacitated young adult, he’s probably one of the most vulnerable and incapacitated young people in Birmingham and the Mental Capacity Act 2005 was drawn up to protect vulnerable incapacitated people just like James from devious and deceptive people just like Monica stitching them up with bad decisions made for them and deprivation of liberty. I believe now that I’ve shed light on Monica’s infractions and lack of compliance with the Act that my contribution is a pertinent and important contribution to the review of James at QAC because QAC is a good institution and they would not want to fall into the trap Monica has set them by goading them to break the Act and deprive James – a severely vulnerable and incapacitated young adult – of his liberty.
My contribution is important to ensure legal compliance by all parties in James’s care, including social services to ensure that they all comply with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and ensure that James’s rights under the Act are adhered to. I believe, that with the knowledge Social Services now have of how Monica has clearly broken the the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and has gone out of her way to deprive a severely vulnerable and incapacitated person of his liberty (words from a barrister’s mouth) it would be negligent of Social Services to exclude such important information about James at QAC from his report. Therefore please include my contribution about James at QAC in full.
I hope that by James’s second report about him at QAC I will be able to report in my contribution that his rights under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 are fully adhered to. However this is clearly not the case right now and James has suffered clear breaches, by Monica, of his rights under the Act during the last couple of months including his first month at QAC and he has the right for this important information to be included in his report in order to help everybody learn from past breaches of the Act and ensure that James rights under the Act are adhered to going forward.
Therefore, again, for James, please include my contribution about James and legal compliance of all individuals in his care at QAC in full. There is nothing sinister in my contribution its just an accurate and informative piece about how James’s legal rights as an incapacitated person have been breached by Monica and how she has goaded QAC to breach them too. As far as I can ascertain, certainly regarding Skype, QAC have not taken Monica’s bate. Only Monica does sinister with her devious and deceptive ways whereas, conversely I just do accurate and informative contributions that shed light on legal compliance and there is nothing sinister in that. Therefore please include my contribution about James at QAC in full.
Kind regards
Simon
On 15 October 2014 14:26, Ivko, Katy (Adult Social Care – Solihull MBC) <katyivko@solihull.gov.uk> wrote:
Hi Simon,
Thank you for your email. I will not be attaching the report in full as when I write up the review I will be incorporating the information provided by all parties, but I am pleased to hear that you feel James’s placement at QAC is working well. As the review will be focused on James and his care while at QAC, I will not be including information about contact arrangements as this is for yourself and Monica to arrange. If you could provide me with an address to send the completed report to, will of course post you a copy.
Kind regards,
Katy
Katy Ivko
Social worker
South Support Planning Team
3 The Green
Shirley
Solihull
B90 4LA
0121 704 8007 etx 3189
Work mobile: 07795450849
Father’s contribution that exposed Mrs Ryder’s abuse of a seriously vulnerable and incapacitated young adult that was covered up by Social Worker Katy Ivco:
Hi Katy.
Thank you.
Please attach the following as my contribution to the report:
I’m delighted my son has a place at QAC and he seems to have settled in very well. During the first contact via Skype James had only been at the college a few days and he looked a little tired and confused. He hadn’t seen his Dad (who he usually calls Simon as he called his Nanny Jeany and his Granddad Arthur – he’s always been very relaxed with his family) and baby brother Sirus on Skype for over 7 weeks due to his mother’s unilateral breaking off of contact and refusal to set up Skype calls at this time and this probably added to his confusion. During this chat I reassured James that we would see him every two weeks on Skype and would visit him at his school in November and December during this year’s trip to Birmingham. In the second Skype contact James was his normal bubbly self and he appeared very well, happy and alert.
As a result of Monica’s criminal infractions of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 whereby she has made a deliberate and devious attempt (to yourself based on your initial communication with me and to QAC based on James’s application form) to airbrush James’s past and future family support network out of his life (she knows we see him regularly on Skype and visit him for a couple of months every year) I am now a named contact for James at QAC representing his soon to be 3 brothers one of whom lives in Solihull and his uncle David who also lives in Solihull. I was appointed a contact by the Mental Capacity Act 2005 which is a higher authority than Monica.
Monica’s attempt to airbrush James’s past and future support network out of his life contravened section 16.2 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 which clearly states that Monica is only allowed to take a decision for an incapacitated person if she takes the decision in the incapacitated person’s very best interests. Well, by neglecting to mention James’s paternal family who Monica left James with until 7pm every weekday and every other weekend for most of his life and his 9 year old brother Sasha who grew up with James she could not have been more negligent as far as her obligations to comply with the Act are concerned to ensure James rights under the Act to receive his family as visitors at his new residence and to keep up the close bonds with Sasha and Sirus who will one day be his only family and who James will need to keep an eye on him and visit him. These are James rights and Monica must adhere to them. She is not above the law.
The Mental Capacity Act 2005 also makes it clear that Monica must, in no way, deprive James of his liberty to receive his family as guests for short visits to QAC where James resides and to go for days out with his family during their annual 2 month stays in Birmingham.
Monica’s devious infractions have turned what should have been an exclusively happy “right of passage” for James into a very distressing nightmare of unnecessary introductions, explanations, search for legal advice and unnecessary embarrassment with social services and QAC. She must never be allowed to do this again and, in future, it is paramount that whatever institution James resides at I or one of his other paternal family members must always be one of James’s named contacts. This in the only way to ensure that Monica complies with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and that ALL of James’s rights under the Act to have ALL his decisions made in his best interests and to NOT be deprived of his liberty to receive his family as guests are fully adhered to.
Kind regards
Karen’s Response
Despite answering the questions Kane raises on numerous occasions the only response she will give me is to keep asking me the sames questions – the answers are in the information she has already asked me but it doesn’t look like she wants to read the informatio – probably because she doesn’t like whats in the information and she has dismissed my concerns by asking me the same questions repeatedly and repeatedly refusing to ascertain thew answers from the information given over many months.
“Dear Mr F
Thank for your emails and the extensive amount of information included within them.
In order for us to proceed with your complaint, I would be most grateful if you could respond directly and from your own perspective as the complainant, to each of the questions below.
It is not good or normal practice when processing complaints for 3rd parties to make assumptions regarding what the complainant is complaining about. To do this could be detrimental to the quality and timeliness of the response. As the person making the complaint, you are the person best placed to provide the answers, as you see them. The experiences that you wish to raise concerns about, are personal to yourself and hence should not pre-empted by a third party.
Could you please write each answer under the appropriate question or refer to the specific piece of evidence submitted, that you feel responds directly to the question and why. This will help us to efficiently consider how best to proceed with your concerns.
Once these answers have been provided I can look again at the concerns you are raising and advise you of the way forward. If you concerns are different to those below, please detail them separately, in order that we may understand exactly what your issues are and can then process them appropriately.
Y 1. You state that you wish to raise a complaint against Social Services for not protecting J from his abuser and relentlessly ignoring complaints of her abuse/offences under multiple Acts of Parliament. You also ask the question “Why did nobody listen to my repeated reports of J’s mothers abuse of my vulnerable and incapacitated son?”
In order for us to consider this issue, could you confirm when and to whom the complaints you refer to were submitted please, providing dates?
Could you also please provide copies of the concerns that were submitted ( am I correct in thinking that these are the emails to Katy Ivko that you have now submitted)?
C Could you please detail the abuse against J that you refer to?
The focus of the complaint should refer to any abuse against J, as the vulnerable adult.
Were the reports of abuse made separately to the complaints? If so to whom and when and what was said?
(2 2. You state that Mrs R committed serious offences under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 Section 16 and the Disability Discrimination and Libel Laws
Could you please detail these offences and how you feel that they breach the legislation you name in relation to J.
Could you please confirm that you feel these offences were against J and if so how?
(3) 3. You state that you received frosty email and telephone reception from Adult Social Services in the weeks prior to and after your sons placement at college.
Could you please give detail of when and with whom you communicated and what led you to believe that you were being treated in a frosty manner.
(4 Your original contribution to J’s Social Work Report that contained your barrister’s words was cast aside.
Do you have details of the contribution provided and can you elaborate further please regarding how you know that this was cast aside.”
27/08/2014
Hi K
I’m J’s father and I can’t get through to J’s mother Mrs Ryder. She’s stopped answering all messages and it looks like she’s changed her phone number. I’m very worried about my son because he’s so severely disabled being 19 years old with a mental age of less than two in some respects (his favourite TV programs).
Normally I see him once a fortnight on Skype but for the last two weeks Mrs Ryder’s telephone has been unobtainable and she has stopped responding to email and Skype.
I’ve lived in Thailand since I was bankrupted and made homeless by the property crash in 2008 so I feel very cut off from whatever is happening at the moment with J’s transition from school to a residential care environment.
I asked Mrs Ryder for J to go to a residential college or similar not too far from Solihull so J’s brother S who lives in Solihull can visit him and my new family (I have a 1 and a half year old boy called Sirus and my partner is expecting one more child) can visit J during our annual trips to England the next one being in November.
Please do a health and safety check on J to ensure he’s ok and his needs are being met and help me to find the most appropriate place for J now he’s finished school. My parents have both sadly died a couple of years ago and my second wife left me when we became homeless in 2008 so I’m much more alone now than during J’s transition from school RC to school M which turned out to be a fantastic move for J even though Mrs Ryder sadly opposed it at the time.
Please help.
Kind regards
S
28/08/2014
Hi S,
Thank you for your email. I’m aware that you have tried to call me a couple of times and I have just tried to call you back but unfortunately I cannot get through. I believe your contact number does not allow calls from private numbers and that is blocking my call. If you would like to try calling again, I will be in this morning.
I am sorry to hear that you have not been able to get through to Mrs Ryder. Unfortunately I am not able to facilitate access to either Mrs Ryder or J. I spoke to Mrs Ryder earlier this week and she told me that J is doing well so I hope that reassures you. Please do try calling again if you would like to discuss this further. I will be on annual leave after today, returning 10 September.
Kind regards,
K
Hi K
I’ve looked at the Q College’s website all I can say is what a fantastic college! This college should build on the progress J made at school M. I particularly like the ICT – perfect for J family contact by Skype. It’s also local enough for us to take J out on bus rides during our annual trips to England and for Brother S to visit J.
Message for A
Thank you and thank you to all staff at school M for all their help with J. J was a different person almost overnight once he attended school M. Mom would have loved to have come to his graduation ceremony
I know she would be pleased about J’s residential place at college Q – she said a residential college could be the making of J.
Thanks again
Kind regards
S
Hi K (J social worker)
I attach my passport for security purposes.
J’s family all love J very much and we are very much and are very anxious to resume normal contact with J in his new residential college Q. J’s 10 month a year Skype contact has already been agreed with Q we’re just waiting for confirmation of his actual days out contact during November and December when his family and future carers will be in Birmingham to spend quality time with their brother J at Q and in days out. Eventually, when we have the funds we’ll permanently resettle in Birmingham. The only contact sought is the normal contact proposed by J’s previous social worker M C when Mrs Ryder started to participate in J after school care when he was 13. At this time M confirmed that Mrs Ryder’s new outsourced daytime carers were able to able to care for J during a seizure and she upheld J’s Monday night stop overs with his family and his every other weekend stopovers with his family and a couple of days per week during school holidays and this has continued to the present day. We’ll just be continuing the same were nor seeking extra contact. We just need this confirming at J’s new address at college Q.
Two of J’s carers: Arthur and Jean are already dead sadly passing away from Cancer at the beginning of 2012. Currently J has his father and mother left to care for him and eventually his 9 year old brother Sasha will be able to care for him. J already has his 9 year old brother and future carer Sasha who lives permanently in Solihull and Arthur and Jean have been replaced with brothers Sirus, Sasha and Sister Se. J’s one and a half year old brother and future carer and J will have a new brother or possibly sister and future carer when his step mother Cherma will give birth in April 2015. Mrs Ryder has already outlived her own father who died very young of natural causes. Therefore when J’s parents are no longer around to care for him and ensure that decisions taken for him by other people adhere to his legal rights to have them taken in his best interests his brothers or brothers and sister will be there to care for him and ensure his legal rights are adhered to. In other words J’s future carers will be his siblings who grew up around him in a loving family environment.
Meet James’s family
James on the bus with his youngest brother:
Sasha grew up with J and here they are when Sasha was a toddler:
J 12th Birthday party video with his family
J with his family at the Think Tank
J’s 18th Birthday Party with his family
J’s 18th Birthday Party with his family 2
J’s 18th Birthday Party with his family 3
J’s 18th Birthday Party with his family Candles
J with his family at soft play
Please add to my son’s contact list: Father S, C (Step mother), Alexander (Sasha) (J’s 9 year old brother and future care contact when J’s parents are no longer around), and S2 (J’s baby brother and future care contact when J’s parents are no longer around ). J will have one more brother, or possibly sister in approximately 6 months’ time who will also be a future care contact for J when J’s parents are no longer around).
Mrs Ryder has already out lived her father who died of cerebral problems so it’s very important for J relationship with his family, his brothers in particular, to blossom and grow as they will be his only carers or care contacts at some future point when Mrs Ryder and I are no longer around. Mrs Ryder and her husband can no longer have children so it’s been left to me provide family for my son to take care of him and keep an eye on him when Mrs Ryder and I are no longer around.
Please understand this and help to get this current extraordinary unilateral 6 week contact block overturned ASAP so that J’s normal contact with his family can resume.
Kind regards
Hi S,
Thank you for your emails and I’m sorry not to reply before now – I have just returned from leave.
While I appreciate that it must be very frustrating for you to be trying to maintain contact with J, this is not something I am able to assist with. I understand that you previously had input from J’s social worker when he was under children’s social services but as J is now an adult I am not able to get involved in any issues regarding contact. As I said when we last spoke, this is something a solicitor may be able to help with if you choose to go down that route.
I’m pleased to hear that you agree that Q will be a good placement for J and I hope he will do very well there.
Kind regards,
K
The problem with Social Worker K’s email above is that when I took her advice that was later the police’s advice too K just ignored it!!!
Here is my contribution to my son’s report which includes my barrister’s advice:
Hi K.
Thank you.
Please attach the following as my contribution to the report:
I’m delighted my son has a place at Q and he seems to have settled in very well. During the first contact via Skype J had only been at the college a few days and he looked a little tired and confused. He hadn’t seen his Dad (who he usually calls S as he called his Nanny Jeany and his Granddad Arthur – he’s always been very relaxed with his family) and baby brother Sirus on Skype for over 7 weeks due to his mother’s unilateral breaking off of contact and refusal to set up Skype calls at this time and this probably added to his confusion. During this chat I reassured J that we would see him every two weeks on Skype and would visit him at his school in November and December during this year’s trip to Birmingham. In the second Skype contact J was his normal bubbly self and he appeared very well, happy and alert.
As a result of Mrs Ryder’s criminal infractions of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 whereby she has made a deliberate and devious attempt (to yourself based on your initial communication with me and to Q based on J’s application form) to airbrush J’s past and future family support network out of his life (she knows we see him regularly on Skype and visit him for a couple of months every year) I am now a named contact for J at Q representing his soon to be 3 brothers one of whom lives in Solihull and his uncle David who also lives in Solihull. I was appointed a contact by the Mental Capacity Act 2005 which is a higher authority than Mrs Ryder.
Mrs Ryder’s attempt to airbrush J’s past and future support network out of his life contravened section 16.2 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 which clearly states that Mrs Ryder is only allowed to take a decision for an incapacitated person if she takes the decision in the incapacitated person’s very best interests.
Well, by neglecting to mention J’s paternal family who Mrs Ryder left J with until 7pm every weekday and every other weekend for most of his life and his 9 year old brother Sasha who grew up with J she could not have been more negligent as far as her obligations to comply with the Act are concerned to ensure J rights under the Act to receive his family as visitors at his new residence and to keep up the close bonds with Sasha and Sirus who will one day be his only family and who J will need to keep an eye on him and visit him. These are J rights and Mrs Ryder must adhere to them. She is not above the law.
The Mental Capacity Act 2005 also makes it clear that Mrs Ryder must, in no way, deprive J of his liberty to receive his family as guests for short visits to College X where J resides and to go for days out with his family during their annual 2 month stays in Birmingham.
Mrs Ryder’s devious infractions have turned what should have been an exclusively happy “right of passage” for J into a very distressing nightmare of unnecessary introductions, explanations, search for legal advice and unnecessary embarrassment with social services and Q. She must never be allowed to do this again and, in future, it is paramount that whatever institution J resides at I or one of his other paternal family members must always be one of J’s named contacts. This in the only way to ensure that Mrs Ryder complies with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and that ALL of J’s rights under the Act to have ALL his decisions made in his best interests and to NOT be deprived of his liberty to receive his family as guests are fully adhered to.
Kind regards
S
Social Worker K completely covered up my barrister’s advice as my contribution to J’s report and published a complete pack of lies from Mrs Ryder. To the social workers credit the pack of lies were labelled as Mrs Ryder’s contribution and not the words of the social worker. It’s a travesty that father’s barrister derived contribution was completely covered up!! This is the crux of my complaint against Solihull Social Services doing a Rotherham style cover up that aids the vulnerable person’s abuser, in this case Mrs Ryder abusing a vulnerable young adult’s incapacity, to carry on abusing her victim’s incapacity!!!!. This beggars belief and this needs to be fully investigated before it is possible to take down this supportive website puts pressure on J’s abuser while facilitating J’s contact with his loved ones.
This was the first cogent report of abuse against a very vulnerable young adult’s incapacity to be reported to Solihull Social Services which is a clear case of professional negligence by the social worker and many more followed and like this first abuse report they were all totally ignored by Solihull social services.
It beggars belief that following well publicised cases of abuse against vulnerable people that social workers can still just cover up the evidence even when it comes from a barrister and practice professional negligence with impunity in order to allow the abuser who groomed them with Savile style deceitful manipulation to carry on abusing with impunity as I begged Solihull Social Services over the last 7 months to bring Mrs Ryder into compliance with her obligations under the Section 16 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Disability Discrimination Laws.
29/09/14
Mrs Ryder dismissed J’s family’s desperate pleas to resume contact with J (that should never have been broken off) as a “rant” and threatens to further abuse J’s incapacity and his family by yet again threatening to break off communication.
This whole 7 months of terror she has unilaterally inflicted on J is exactly because she kidnapped him or “abused his incapacity to nudge him off the radar to illegally deprive him of his normal Skype and actual contact with his family then make herself incommunicado and watch J and his family suffer at her pleasure” see below:
S
I don’t want to talk to you when you’re ranting like this.
Do you realise that all this is about 3 days that I’m asking you to see J during the holiday instead of college time (15 and 29 November and 13 December)? It’s the same number of days overall so I can’t understand what your problem is. I said quite clearly that I’m happy for you to make up for any time during the holiday.
Mrs Ryder
22/12/14
Hi K
My son J is a very is a very vulnerable young adult who does not have capacity to make his own decisions. As such he is totally dependent on others making his decisions for him. When J was 13 years old his former social worker: MC upheld his rich contact with his paternal family who Mrs Ryder delegated day time care to 7pm to care to from birth to 13 years old in order to support her demanding full time job.
During this time J younger brother Sasha grew up around him. He also has a new younger brothers called Sirus and there is a 3rd younger brother or sister due in 6 months. J siblings are his future carers when his mother and father are no longer around. Neither J’s mother nor father are immortal and Mrs Ryder has already outlived her father who died very young of natural causes.
You recently told me that Mrs Ryder is J current carer. Well this is a position that Mrs Ryder can only occupy whilst she is alive. As stated above Mrs Ryder has already outlived her father who died very young of natural causes. When Mrs Ryder is no longer alive J care will pass to myself as J father and lifelong participant in J care if I am still alive at the time of Mrs Ryder’s passing.
If I am not alive at the time of Mrs Ryder’s passing then the so called role of J’s “carer” will pass to his younger brothers. They will either be J’s carer or responsible carer contact because they grew up around J. Therefore it is ABSILUTELY NOT IN J BEST INTERESTS FOR HIS CONTACT WITH HIS PATERNAL FAMILY AND YOUNGER SIBLINGS TO BE WATERED DOWN TO LESS THAT IT IS CURRENTLY I.E. every Monday night and every other weekend and a couple of days a week during our annual 2 month visits to Birmingham and his fortnightly contact on Skype during the rest of the year (already agreed with Q). Eventually we’ll resettle in Birmingham when we have the funds to do so.
J Protection in law:
According to the Mencap website here is my son’s legal position regarding his contact with his young family and I’ve found this: https://www.mencap.org.uk/about-learning-disability/laws-and-rights/consent
J’s clearly doesn’t have the capacity to complain about Mrs Ryder’s sudden cutting him off from his family that he’s loved and have loved and cared for him for most of his life. Therefore he’s reliant on a family member to correct this current injustice recently imposed upon him.
The law states: “Only people who lack capacity will need to have decisions made for them, and even then they must be made in their best interests”.
The key point here is “and even then they must be made in their best interests”. Well I don’t believe there is a reasonable person alive today who would consider it in my son’s “best interests” for him to be arbitrarily and unilaterally cut off from his growing family and future carers who have loved and cared for him all his life and some of whom have grown up around him.
Therefore questions must be asked of the “reasonableness” of the person who made this cruel arbitrary and unilateral decision completely out of the blue. I believe the majority of reasonable people alive today would simply consider Mrs Ryder’s unilateral action to be Unreasonable.
J severe mental disability that denies him the capacity to make his own decisions means he is dependent on others making decisions for him.
Therefore J rights under the UK mental health laws that any decisions made for him by others due to his lack of capacity must be made in his best interests which is to maintain his normal contact with his family and younger brothers who will be what you call his “carers” when Mrs Ryder is no longer around.
Therefore please confirm that we can take J on days out with his brothers as usual when were are on holiday in Birmingham in November and December. Normal contact is every Monday evening and every other weekend and a day or two in the school holidays. Last year Mrs Ryder let us have J on Wednesdays in the school holidays as well as Mondays. She was also reliable at facilitating J Skype contact with his family on average every couple of weeks since April 2012 until she arbitrarily and unilaterally stopped communicating last month.
J is a wonderful but very vulnerable person with a sunny personality and his family just want everybody to rally round him and support him and his new college maintaining his normal contact with his brothers and future carers.
Kind regards
S
J’s Social Worker K completely ignored this cogent emailed report of Mrs Ryder’s abuse of J’s incapacity. This has to be professional Negligence.
Police Complaint against Mrs Ryder
23/03/15
How did J’s Mother groom Solihull Social services and College X Birmingham into inadvertently aiding and abetting her to harness the incapacity of my severely disabled, totally defenceless young adult son with a mental age of circa 4 to all but kidnap him by placing him beyond the reach of his loved ones who he grew up with and whom grew up with him by committing offences under the Harassment Laws (repeatedly harassing College X to aid and abet her abuse of my son’s incapacity), the Hate Crime Laws, the Libel Laws, Section 16 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Disability Discrimination laws. I have evidence that J’s Mother has left no stone unturned to HARASS College X into non-compliance of their obligations under Section 16 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Disability Discrimination Laws?
J’s Mother is now in the process of grooming the police to aid her in committing the above offences by logging a totally unfounded ridiculous complaint the J’s father is harassing her now the net is closing in on the offences she’s committed and she’s started to feel the heat of the law closing in on her. She’s behaving like a burglar who has logged a complaint to the police about his victim harassing him because he wants his loot back and to press charges against the burglar.
The police have so far remained impartial and requested that I communicate only with Mrs J’s Mother’s solicitor. I’ve respectfully explained to the police that I’ve been trying to do that since the New Year but she keeps refusing to give me her solicitor’s contact details. I’ve also explained to the police that I don’t have funds to hire another solicitor but I’ve already taken extensive legal advice and ascertained which laws J’s Mother has offended under and as my disabled son’s life time legal representative, I have the charges ready to put directly to J’s Mother’s solicitor.
The bottom line is that J’s Mother has terrorised J’s paternal family since she all but kidnapped my defenceless seriously disabled son J late last summer and commence to deny him his regular Skype and actual contact he’d always enjoyed with his father and brothers. J’s father has lost the last 6 months of his life since J’s Mother started to offend under the above laws in a totally unprovoked and hateful manner. To rescue J from his mother’s illegal abuse of his severe incapacity J’s father has had to single handedly expose how Solihull Social Services and College X Birmingham have been groomed by J’s Mother into aiding and abetting her to carry serious offences under the Harassment laws, Hate Crime Laws, the Libel Laws, Section 16 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Disability Discrimination laws right under their noses in plein sight of the college and social services.
This uphill battle to rescue my defenceless son by restoring his regular contact with his father and brothers as well as preventing his mother from abusing his incapacity again has been an uphill battle and has cause countless sleepless nights. Therefore it is absolutely paramount that J’s Mother is permanently prevented from carrying out these offences against a severely disabled and utterly defenceless young adult with a mental age of circa 4 ever again and be sure she doesn’t offend again the next time she gets the urge to show the world how much she hates J’s family so that J’s family can live in peace and harmony as they did prior to his incapacity being harnessed to illegally put him beyond the reach of his loved ones.
22 March 2015
J’s Mother
The police are copied into this email.
I’ve always been J’s legal representative when he’s been in trouble and I have a 100% success rate for him. I got him off the excruciatingly painful Ritalin drug therapy you put him on. I single handedly won his SENDIST Tribunal when Reynalds Cross School discriminated against him because he was disabled according to the SENDIST Tribunal. As a result of my legal representation for J, whereby he was even refused 1 to 1 care he actually received 2 to 1 care following my legal representation. I’m in the process of restoring his contact with his loved ones and preventing you from abusing his incapacity once and for all!!
Under current government thinking following Stoke Mandeville and Rotherham I could be jailed for 3 years for failing to report your abuse of J’s incapacity and your harassment of his residential college to aid and abet you in your abuse of J’s incapacity. I have a duty to report this and I am legally obliged to copy in J’s representative at his LEA (J) and social services and COLLEGE X (only the legal team as I have their contact details). I also have a duty to J to clear my name at the LEA and Social services and COLLEGE X as I have grounds to believe you’ve libelled his father to them. This is not harassment!!!!!!!!!
You are responsible for forcing me to communicate with you against my will by effectively kidnapping my son (you unilaterally and for no reason whatsoever other than a lust to serve me up some devastation on a very cold plate – a hate crime) made yourself incommunicado leaving me with no knowledge of where my severely disabled and totally defenceless son was and indeed whether he was alive or dead and you illegally deprived him of his liberty to Skype his family (Mental Capacity Act 2005)), libelling me to all the agencies involved in his care and going on a rampage of harassment of his college to get them to aid and abet you in your abuse of his incapacity. If you had not chosen to carry out these dastardly deeds you know for sure I would not be communicating with you now!! There would be no compensation for you to pay and you wouldn’t be facing possible criminal charges for non-compliance with the Harassment laws, Hate Crime Laws, the Libel Laws, Section 16 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Disability Discrimination Laws.
Regarding your false statement to the police that I have harassed you I refute that in the strongest possible terms and I’ll be including this in my claim against you when I finally get to communicate with your solicitor who I’ve been pleading with you give me the contact details of.
The police have “implied” that it is your express wish for me to communicate with you directly based on your constant refusal to give me the contact details of your solicitor. They have also explicitly said that once you have appointed a solicitor I must communicate exclusively with your solicitor and that I will surely do. I’m only hindered by not having your solicitor’s contact details.
Please be informed that refusal to give me the contact details of your solicitor is not a get out of jail free card – it simply forces me to communicate with you directly to get the matter resolved even though I don’t want to communicate with you directly.
Also, both social services and College X have drummed it into my head that I have to communicate with you directly until either the matter is resolved of you give me the contact details of your solicitor.
I understand that you don’t want to communicate about your abuse of my son by your repeated failures to comply with the Harassment Laws (repeatedly harassing College X to aid and abet your abuse of my son’s incapacity), the Hate Crime Laws, the Libel Laws, Section 16 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Disability Discrimination laws. I have evidence that you have left no stone unturned to HARASS College X into non-compliance of their obligations under Section 16 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Disability Discrimination Laws. The police are investigating these offences and I’ll give you the log number of the complaint as soon as it’s available.
The quickest way for you to end the 6 month torment and terror you have inflicted on J’s father since you illegally abused his son’s incapacity to put him beyond the reach of his loved ones 2 months prior to his placement at COLLEGE X and prior to your 6 month rampage of harassment of his college to aid and abet you in your abuse of J’s incapacity is to give me the contact details of your solicitor. Your abuse of j and J’s family must end soon and the sooner you end it the less compensation you will be liable to pay now please give me the contact details of your solicitor. The Police, LEA, Social Services, COLLEGE X and J’s paternal family will all be very relieved when I have the contact details of your solicitor so the nightmare you have unilaterally inflicted on everybody can be permanently concluded.
Yours sincerely
J’s father
21 March 2015
PC X to J’s Father,
I apologise for the e-mail but I realise that it is 03:40 am where you are and a telephone call would not be appropriate.
I would much prefer to speak to you in person but due to your location am unable to do this.
This evening I received a complaint from your ex partner Mrs J’s Mother.
She was concerned about recent e-mails that she has received and e-mails that you have sent to other angencies with personal information about herself and details of past events.
J’s father’s response
I am, have always been, and always will be my defencelessI have a duty to repair my reputation with the agencies i
I understand that there are on going issues with regard to contact over your son J.
It appears that there has been a breakdown in communication between yourself and J’s Mother with regard to this and other related issues.
I also understand that all parties have their own perspective on this sensitive matter.
However I am emailing to ask that you stop these e-mails to J’s Mother and to please use your solicitor for any future communication.
I have offered the same advice to J’s Mother.
It appears evident that the way in which both parties schedule times to see and speak with your son J may need to be reviewed in order to prevent any escalation of this matter.
Im sure that neither party would want this to become an harassment issue.
I have advised J’s Mother to arrange and keep you informed of alternative methods of communication, enabling you to keep contact with your son when required but negating any need for future direct contact with J’s Mother.
This matter has been logged with West Midlands Police ref: 1425 18/03/15 should there be any future issues.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.
Kind regards
PC X
J’s father’s response to the libellous allegations J’s Mother has made about J’s father to the police:
I’ve always been J’s legal representative when he’s been in trouble and I have a 100% success rate for him. I got him off the excruciatingly painful Ritalin drug therapy you put him on. I single handedly won his SENDIST Tribunal when Reynalds Cross School discriminated against him because he was disabled according to the SENDIST Tribunal. As a result of my legal representation for J, whereby he was even refused 1 to 1 care he actually received 2 to 1 care following my legal representation. I’m in the process of restoring his contact with his loved ones and preventing you from abusing his incapacity once and for all!!
Under current government thinking following Stoke Mandeville and Rotherham I could be jailed for 5 years for failing to report J’s Mother’s abuse of J’s incapacity and her harassment of his residential college to aid and abet her in her abuse of J’s incapacity. I have a duty to report this and I am legally obliged to copy in J’s representative at his LEA (J) and social services and COLLEGE X (only the legal team as I have their contact details). I also have a duty to J to clear my name at the LEA and Social services and COLLEGE X as I have grounds to believe J’s Mother libelled his father to them. This is not harassment!!!!!!!!!
J’s Mother is responsible for forcing me to communicate with her against my will by effectively kidnapping my son (she unilaterally and for no reason whatsoever other than a lust to serve me up some devastation on a very cold plate – a hate crime) made herself incommunicado leaving me with no knowledge of where my severely disabled and totally defenceless son was and indeed whether he was alive or dead and she illegally deprived him of his liberty to Skype his family (Mental Capacity Act 2005)), libelling me to all the agencies involved in his care and going on a rampage of harassment of his college to get them to aid and abet her in her abuse of his incapacity. If she had not chosen to carry out these dastardly deeds she know for sure I would not be communicating with her now!! There would be no compensation for her to pay and she wouldn’t be facing possible criminal charges for non-compliance with the Harassment laws, Hate Crime Laws, the Libel Laws, Section 16 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Disability Discrimination Laws.
Regarding her false statement to the police that I have harassed her I refute that in the strongest possible terms and I’ll be including this in my claim against her when I finally get to communicate with her solicitor who I’ve been pleading with you give me the contact details of.
PC X you have “implied” that it is J’s Mother’s express wish for me to communicate with her directly based on her constant refusal to give me the contact details of her solicitor. PC X you have also explicitly said that once J’s Mother has appointed a solicitor I must communicate exclusively with her solicitor. I give you my utmost reassurance that I will comply with your request upon receipt of J’s Mother’s solicitors’ contact details. I’m only hindered by not having J’s Mother’s solicitor’s contact details.
I wish to inform J’s Mother that refusal to give me the contact details of her solicitor is not a get out of jail free card – it simply forces me to communicate with her directly to get the matter resolved even though I don’t want to communicate with her directly.
Also, both social services and College X have drummed it into my head that I have to communicate with J’s Mother directly until either the matter is resolved of she gives me the contact details of her solicitor.
I understand that J’s Mother doesn’t want to communicate about her abuse of my son by her repeated failures to comply with the Harassment Laws (repeatedly harassing College X to aid and abet your abuse of my son’s incapacity), the Hate Crime Laws, the Libel Laws, Section 16 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Disability Discrimination laws. I have evidence that she has left no stone unturned to HARASS College X into non-compliance of their obligations under Section 16 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Disability Discrimination Laws. I presume the police are now investigating these countless offences.
The quickest way for J’s Mother to end the 6 month torment and terror she has inflicted on J’s father since she illegally abused his son’s incapacity to put him beyond the reach of his loved ones 2 months prior to his placement at COLLEGE X and prior to J’s Mother’s 6 month rampage of harassment of his college to aid and abet her in your abuse of J’s incapacity is for her to give me the contact details of her solicitor. Her abuse of J and J’s family must end soon.
The Police, LEA, Social Services, COLLEGE X and J’s paternal family will all be very relieved when I have the contact details of J’s Mother’s solicitor so the nightmare she has unilaterally inflicted on everybody can be permanently concluded.
Yours sincerely
J’s Father
01/11/14 from Mrs Ryder
I expect J’s last day in college will be 19th December, when he will come home for the Christmas holiday. You would have liked to see James on Mondays as well. However he is entering a phase of intense living skills curriculum which takes place after college hours and he would miss out on this.
James also needs to see us and possibly come home on the other weekends if he is feeling too home sick. There are also a lot of activities at weekends which he should take part in to help with his adjustment to life in college and independent from family.
So I suggest that you have additional days during the Christmas holiday to make up for this, starting with the weekend 20/21 December which should have been our weekend. We can agree the holiday dates separately, but the college need to know when to expect you. You will also have to agree with House staff pick up and drop off times to fit in with the House activities.
01/11/14
Mrs Ryder
Stop this abuse now and stop goading college X and Social Services to break the law
The additional day will be nice but there are no no go areas for J’s brothers – you cannot exclude them from J’s residence – as explained the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Disability Discrimination laws forbid it. As explained in my last email for the 5 weeks that James brothers are in town the living skills curriculum takes a lower priority than showing off his place to his brothers which all non incapacitated people do and you must comply with the Acts and not abuse J by taking advantage of his incapacity to deprive him of his liberty to practice his living skills in the presence of his brothers and receive his loved ones as his guests in his own place for a very very short period of time.
Just twice a week for 5 weeks term time and James family won’t be around for another year so that my severely incapacitated son can seize his opportunity granted him by the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Disability Discrimination laws to stop you from depriving him of his liberty to maintain his loving bonds with his brothers in a dignified manner, in his own place of residence, something they can talk about in years to come, something that his non incapacitated peers can do without relying on a third party to make a call for them. Sasha will never forget seeing his brother in his own place and the awe that inspires. Its like when your first teenage peer gets a car and you feel the awe of their independence when they take you out in it or when you visit your first peer to get their own place. Sasha will never forget this and James will be proud to show him round.
Judging by the manner in which you misrepresented the facts to social services and college X judging by their shock that James has a loving paternal family who jointly raised him it seems inclusivity and legal compliance were the last things on your mind. The main reason James brothers were appointed contacts at college X by the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Disability Discrimination laws was because you went out of your way to take advantage of James incapacity to abuse a severely incapacitated and vulnerable young adult by airbrushing his brothers one of whom grew up with James – out of his life. This was an act of intolerable abuse against a person as vulnerable and incapacitated as James. What chance did James have of getting back in touch with his family? If it wasn’t for my actions in requesting a Health and Safety check for him he may never have seen his brothers ever again.
Please grow up and accept that his living skills can take place as well as him being able to touch base with his family at his residence for a very short time – see above. When I was a Uni every single student had their liberty to show off their place and receive visits in their place of their loved ones. There were no third parties around saying you can’t do that! Nobody said all your after lesson time should be spent learning skills! The bottom line is that James’s severe vulnerability means that his whole life has been controlled, choreographed and spent doing what others have told him he can and can’t do and nobody who read James brain scan reports and watched his videos with his brothers of whom he has a very very short window of opportunity to exercise his rights under the Acts with would say he should be deprived of this brief opportunity because you want to break the law and deprive him of his liberty to do.
What is all this either or? What ever happened to inclusivity and compliance with the law so that college X don’t have to face a SENDIST Tribunal and bad publicity because you just will not stop goading them to break the law?
What is wrong with legal compliance? What is wrong with playing by the rules?
All you have achieved with your tirade of abuse against J and his family is get us appointed by the Mental Capacity Act 2005 as named contacts at college X and at whatever other place he resides at.
I and James brothers have been appointed named contacts by the authority of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to stop you abusing him by taking advantage of his severe vulnerability and incapacity to deprive him of liberty and put him at a disadvantage to his non incapacitated peers – disability discrimination.
James will be more set back if you keep abusing him and trying to deprive him of his legal rights which I will see are adhered to for him.
Now please grow up and be a little bit more inclusive and broad minded and pragmatic.
S