A father’s love for his incapacitated son – on his 20th birthday 19 July 2015
Solihull Social Services repeatedly ignore legitimate and cogent barrister derived complaints of Mrs Ryder’s abuse of a totally defenceless severely vulnerable young adult’s incapacity
***Stop Press*** Ryder commits Perjury – possibly aided and abetted by Solihull Council Emloyees read more & Solihull Council’s, Solihull MBC Anti Whistle Blowing Culture read more
Camelia Monica Ryder otherwise known as Monica Ryder likes to deceive Vulnerable Adults and Naive and Negligent Solihull Council Employees. She also likes to commit Perjury in UK Courts of Protection, according to the Local Authority Ombudsman. He said, to paraphrase, that her perjury in the Court of Protection is his excuse not to pay compensation to the victims of Ryder’s deceit after she groomed naive social workers over many years to aid and abet her abuse of the incapacity of a vulnerable young adult. Her years of libeling, defaming and committing perjury behind the back of the family of a severely incapacitated young adult culminated in his 2 month kidnapping in the summer of 2014 followed by a whole army of professionals working with military precision to airbrush his loved ones out of his severely incapacitated young adult life.
28/10/17
Local Authority Ombudsman investigator: Mr Phillip Corina, Covers up the abuse of a severely incapacitated young adult’s incapacity by Solihull Council Social Services, under the direction of Deputy Local Authority Ombudsman: Sharon Chappell
How many other cases of Council backed abuse of the incapacity of vulnerable people has Mr Phillip Corina covered up?
It took Phillip Corina four months to write his report. I put put to him that he had a conversation with Solihull Council something like this. “If the plaintiff is correct and his son has a mental capacity of circa 2 to 4 you are in trouble however if you hire some “bent” psychologists of fortune who will be pleased to please you because you are paying them to exaggerate his son’s mental capacity this will water down the extent to which James was abused when he was illegally deprived of seeing his family who he grew up with and who grew up with him during Mrs Camelia Monica Ryder’s 2 month kidnapping (illegally depriving him of his liberty to see his loved ones – a serious offence under Section 16 of the mental Capacity Act 2005) that Solihull Social Services supported (aided and abetted) and this will get you off the hook and I will give you 4 months to acquire the reports and I will write my findings around your “bent” psychologist’s reports so that the council backed abuse of James is covered up”.
When I get the time I will post Phillip Corina’s full unredacted report for people to see and make up their own minds.
In 2007 Solihull Council did exactly the same thing when Reynalds Cross School headed Jane Davenport blamed and punished James for being disabled even though it is a school for the disabled. James had a mental age of 2 to 4 years old (as he still does today) even though he was 12 at the time. Reynalds Cross school rather than give James 1 to 1 support (all we were asking for in view of their complaints about his behaviour) they decided to abuse him by blaming and punishing him for being disabled i.e. punishing him with exclusion for being a naughty 12 year old rather than recognising his metal capacity of circa 2 years old (I knew this because James’s brother Sasha was 2 years old at the time and he was more mentally developed than James in every way and Sasha, too, occasionally threw “terrible two’s” tantrums at the time.
Solihull Council dealt with the matter by hiring not one but two “psychologists of fortune” paid to exaggerate James’ mental capacity to water down the extent that Reynald’s Cross School had abused him.
I am not going to name those two “bent ” psychologists because after I presented them with smoking gun evidence that they had exaggerated my son’s mental capacity to water down the extent to which the school had abused him they toned down their exaggerations.
James won his SENDIST Tribunal which found that Reynalds Cross School for the Disabled had committed Disability Discrimination against James and they ordered the school to apologise to me and the school apologised and gave my son 2 to 1 support even though I only requested 1 to 1 support and I would not have even requested that had they not excluded him for being disabled.
At the time even though the SENDIST Tribunal Supported my disabled son the Local Authority Ombudsman covered up James abuse by Reynalds Cross School just as Mr Phillip Corina under the direction of Sharon Chappell has covered up Solihull Council’s Aiding and Abetting of Camelia Monica Ryder otherwise known as Monica Ryder to commit offences under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 S 16.
Just as Sasha proved the “bent” psychologists of fortune wrong in 2007 today James’s sister Simone who is 2 years old will prove them wrong again. Simone can watch any family movie and enjoy it and she can use the potty. James can only watch baby programs such as Teletubbies, In the night Garden and Thomas the Tank Engine. James cannot use the toilet and he still wheres nappies.
Please see the Sarah Hands (my son’s current social worker who replaced Katy Ivko) page where Sarah asserts (to paraphrase) that ““Two year olds are not allowed to see their family if they choose not to” – Sara Hands” This page clearly explains that regardless of the balderdash the “bent” psychologists of Fortune Solihull Council pay to exaggerate my severely disabled son’s mental capacity James’s MRI scan proves that he simply does not have sufficient neurones in his microcephalic and malformed brain to have the capacity to elect to give up seeing his loved ones who he grew up with and who grew up with him and to understand what he is giving up. Therefore anybody who is calling themselves James’s “carer” has a duty to help him skype his growing family who he grew up with and who grew up with him.
Katy Ivko asserted that Camelia Monica Ryder is James’s carer and she (Ivko) supported Ryder’s abuse of my son’s incapacity even though she knows that if Ryder was the carer Ryder would be required to provide some care for James to be helped to Skype his loved ones but instead of caring for my son Ryder kidnapped him by committing offences under the S16 of the Mental Capacity Act to illegally move my son beyond the reach of his loved ones to deprive him of his liberty to see them on Skype.
It is beyond reasonable doubt that Ryder groomed the professionally negligent and naive Katy Ivko to aid and abet her abuse of my Son’s incapacity and Mr Phillip Corina under the direction of Assistant Local Authority Ombudsman: Sharon Chappell has covered this up in his report and now Sharon Chappell is trying to cover up the name of her investigator Mr Phillip Corina.
Please see my reply to Sharon Cahppell’s letter below:
19/10/17
Dear Ms Chappell
Ex Prime minister Cameron made it very clear he was introducing legislation against covering up the abuse of vulnerable people that would include a prison sentence of up to 5 years. Phillip Corina covered up the fact that he knows Camelia Monica Ryder otherwise known as Monica Ryder is a liar. Had he entered this information that he was privy too in his report he would have been forced to draw a different conclusion to what he drew.
Your letter provides no additional information that he did not cover up this information and therefore committed a serious offence so his name cannot be removed from my severely disabled son’s safeguarding website. Doing so would put me at risk of covering up his cover up and leaving me open to a 5 year prison sentence. I will not be subjecting myself to this risk and it is not in the public interest to cover up Mr Corina’s cover up.
James’s safeguarding website is his only source of protection from his principal abuser and her Solihull Council backers and I will not be removing or watering down his protection until what transpired during the decade and a half that Monica Ryder aggressively libeled and defamed James’s paternal family to all of the professionals whilst at the same time relying on us to provide his care until 7pm every day to the age of 13 whilst smiling at us and being nice to our face has been resolved.
I can assure you that it pains me every minute this website exists and as soon as the matter is resolved the whole site will be taken down otherwise my son will be at the mercy of his principal abuser: Camelia Monica Ryder otherwise known as Monica Ryder and her Solihull Council backers if the site is take down prior to the matter being resolved.
At the end of James’s 2 month kidnapping that Katy Ivco was unphased by she brokered sporadic resumption of James’s video contact with his brother and sister but they teased us with it for up to 6 months until James’s safeguarding website went live. Viable Skype connections are available all over Thailand and the former College’s excuse that Skype connections don’t work one mile from Birmingham City Centre was pathetic. Only after the commissioning of James’s Safeguarding Website did his weekly Skype contact become reliable. After James’s Safeguarding Website became live the college switched sides and started to support my son rather than his abuser thus is the importance of his safeguarding website. This is because people in charge of my son’s care now understand that Camelia Monica Ryder otherwise known as Monica Ryder committed perjury in the Court of Protection and, as such, they cannot hide behind Ryder’s “secret” fraudulent deputyships she obtained by committing perjury in the Court of Protection to provide them with cover to aid and abet Ryder to abuse my son’s incapacity to commit kidnap him and illegally deprive him of his liberty to see his loved ones who he grew up with and who grew up with him.
James’s new supported accommodation provider has supported James and been on his side from day one rather than doing what his principal abuser wants them to do. James’s Safeguarding website is the only protection he has and it would not be diligent to remove or modify it until the matter is resolved.
I’ve suffered post traumatic stress since the shock of the kidnapping and the shock of the decade and a half libel and defamation campaign Ryder has waged against James’s family and the naive and negligent willingness of Solihull Council to aid and abet her abuse my son. Ryder has resolutely refused to give me access to her solicitor for the last 3 years.
My PTS disorder is getting worse and won’t start to heal until the matter is resolved and Mr Corina’s cover up is a barrier causing delay to resolution. There is no point in him looking at the case again because any reasonable person would conclude he is working for the Council.
You know that Mr Corina’s cover up of Monica Ryder’s abuse of my severely incapacitated son’s incapacity was damaging to James’s paternal family and if it was abuse of your disabled son that was being covered up you would not be hiding the identity of the person who covered it up and neither will I.
If Mr Corina is proud of his work then he should have no worries with his name being associated with it.
Please let me know if there is anything else I can help you with.
Your’s sincerely
Simon Foden
Please see Sharon Chappel’s letter:
“Dear Mr Foden
Complaint against Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council
I write in relation to your emails of 16 and 17 October sent to Mr Corina. The decision on your complaint was issued on 23 June 2017. Mr Corina very clearly and comprehensively explained the evidential basis for the conclusions reached in his decision and in the covering letter to that document.
If a complainant is dissatisfied with a decision we have an internal review procedure. Certain criteria must be met for a review to be conducted and any request must be made within one month of the decision being issued (unless exceptional circumstances apply).
I have considered the content of your recent emails. You have not met the criteria for a review to proceed; you have provided no new information or evidence and you are significantly outside the one month timescale.
Your case remains closed and we will not acknowledge or respond to any further communications
from you.
I must also ask you to remove all references you have made to Mr Corina from your website, including documents he has written to you. Our investigations are conducted in private and we expect both complainants and bodies in jurisdiction to abide by and respect this. Please ensure the information is removed from the website without delay.
Yours sincerely
Sharon Chappell
Assistant Ombudsman”
17/10/17
Dear Phillip Corina
The police are copied in.
There are many reasons to reopen your investigation and you gave them 4 months to massage their evidence.
1 You so complexly encrypted the names of the people in your report that it was close to impossible to “uncover” who you were talking about. This was totally unnecessary as their names are already clearly available on my disabled son’s safeguarding website. Some members of the Court of public opinion may think you were covering up their ill deeds.
2 Your letter today clearly identifies Camelia Monica Ryder, otherwise known as Monica Ryder, as a liar who lied to Katy Ivko my son’s naïve and negligent former social worker who was so easily groomed by Monica Ryder. The whole point of my complaint was that Ivko, after being groomed by Ryder, aided and abetted Ryder to abuse my incapacitated son James. This was the whole point of my complaint and, given that you already recognise Ryder as a liar it beggars belief that you were unphased by Ivko’s Professional Negligence and naivety in aiding abetting a known abuser to abuse a vulnerable young adult’s incapacity. The police officer Ryder enrolled to cover up the evidence that Ryder and I had perfectly reasonable business like communication re James by falsely claiming that publishing the evidence on James’s website “harassed her” accepted my explanation that Ryder was behaving like a burglar falsely claiming his victim was harassing him because he wants to seek justice. This is because the police officer recognised that even the sweetest looking ladies tell lies with a sweet smile. Ivko did not recognise that. It beggars belief that a social worker educated to degree level has a lower ability to determine when somebody is feeding them a tissue of lies than a police officer educated to GCSE level has. Ivko was professionally negligent and it is wrong to cover that up.
3 Solihull Council’s Chief Cover Up Officer (CCO), Karen Millard, was also unphased by Ivko’s naivety and professional negligence leading to the Local Authority Ombudsman’s investigation.
4 Your report completely missed Solihull Council’s Anti Whistle Blowing Culture that caused me to be slapped down for gently pointing out that Reynalds Cross School headed by Jane Davenport at the time and still is today blamed and punished a 12 year old boy with a mental age of 2 for behaving like a naughty 2 year old, i.e. his own mental age – when I gently pointed this out they screamed “abuser, aggressive abuser” they asked be to leave and banned me from the school. The Sendist Tribunal later agreed with me that Reynalds Cross School, a disabled child school blamed and punished a severely disabled 12 year old for being disabled – they said the school committed disability discrimination. I was promptly unbanned following release of this information.
The same thing happened when I reported Ivko for aiding and abetting my son’s abuse by his principle abuser – Karen Millard (CCO) wouldn’t have any of it.
4 Now Solihull Council’s Anti Whistle Blowing Culture is in the public domain it is necessary to reopen that investigation which the LAO covered up. The abuse of my son’s incapacity at Ryenalds Cross School headed by Jane Davenport was life changing. The effort required to report and stop the abuse led to me being made bankrupt because I didn’t have time to work and the time coincided with the property crash. This led to relocation to Thailand where the cost of living is only 10% of that in England.
The effort fighting Ivko’s professional negligence and ending my son’s abuse has cost my family 10’s of thousands of pounds in lost work hours.
Ryder not only lied to Ivko about the deputyships she also lied to the police officer investigating James’s council backed kidnapping. The police officer asked me if contact was established following James’s illegal 2 month disappearance and I said yes, but its hit and miss. She said we are going to leave it at that and not investigate further because Ryder as a COP Deputyship. I said the Court of protection repeatedly denied this. She said maybe I’m mistaken.
If Ryder lied to Ivco to groom her to aid and abet her abuse of my son’s incapacity this is a serious offence and the public have a right to see an image of Ryder.
During one of the many times I called COP to ascertain if anybody took out a deputyship to which they always replied no I asked are there circumstances where one is issued but it is not recorded and publicly available. The COP employee said yes, this happens in rare circumstances.
Well it is impossible for me to ever know if the deputyships exist or not and in circumstance as rare as James’s paternal family have been libeled and defamed over a decade and a half by a prolific liar and deceitful manipulator and at a time when a naïve and professionally negligent social worker was in charge of my severely incapacitated young adult son I believe that the balance of probability is that secret illegal secret deputyships exist to provide cover to my incapacitated son’s council backed abusers and the naive and negligent Solihull Council employees who support my son’s abuse.
Therefore, it would be negligent of me, as my son’s principal protector to think that no deputyship was in place to provide cover to his principal abuser and the Solihull Council staff who support her.
Re it being an offence to name LAO investigators it is also an offence to cover up the abuse of vulnerable young adults and your encrypted report uncovers very little so it is questionable here who is committing the offence. However, when it is prudent to do so I will redact your name from James safeguarding website but it would be negligent of me to do so at this stage
5 Now that the balance of probability is that secret COP Deputyships exist you should take Ryder’s perjury into account in your report.
The fact that COP always denied the existence of the deputyships simply means that they were created on the secret track rather than the public track.
There are a couple of common denominators here. Every time (there have only been two) genuine legitimate concerns of abuse of my severely incapacitated and disabled son has been abused by Solihull Council employees such as teaching staff at Reynalds Cross School (My legitimate concerns were upheld by the SENDIST Tribunal but the school staff branded me as “aggressive” for gently raising them at a school meeting – all I whispered was “it is abuse of my son’s incapacity to blame and punish him for being disabled” and that whisper got me banned from the school until I was promptly unbanned following my disabled son’s Tribunal) or reporting a naive and professionally negligent social worker I get slapped down as an “aggressive abuser”.
Please remember at the heat of the moment during James’s Solihull Council backed kidnapping Families Need Fathers who appointed my barrister who was the first to raise Ryder’s offences under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 S 16 FNF said “Mr Foden you been incredibly restrained throughout this ordeal our other members would not have been able to be so restrained” I have only incrementally raised the tone proportionate to the extent my legitimate concerns have been covered up first by a Naive and Professionally Negligent Social Worker then by Karen Millard Solihull Council’s Chief Cover up Officer (CCO) and finally by your encrypted report that “uncovered very little”
It was very difficult to decode in your report that you recognised Camelia Monica Ryder otherwise known as Monica Ryder as a Liar. That was the whole point of my complaint! Why did you not make that clear? !!! Are you covering up my son’s abuse at the hands of Ryder and aided and abetted by Katy Ivko?
There are common denominators in the two abuse cases I’ve raised against Solihull Council staff: 1, I am always slapped down as aggressive for gently raising the legitimate abuse concerns (as any diligent father of a severely incapacitated person would raise) and due to the brick wall of Solihull Council’s Anti Whistle Blowing Culture (AWBC), 2, Ryder’s innate inability to speak the truth, particularly if it concern’s my disabled son’s family and you now recognise her as a liar.
James had a mental age of 2 to 4 when he was 12 years old. Still 2 to 4 today at 22 years old and will still be 2 to 4 in 10 years time when he is 32 years old and the further his mental age and bodily age diverge the more at risk of abuse he will become and the more important it is that he is protected from Camelia Monica Ryder’s abuse of his incapacity.
Now Ryder is finally recognised as a liar it is important that Solihull Council (and the Court of Protection) set aside anything she has ever said or written about James Foden and his family since she first made contact with the council after moving to the area circa 2003 as she aggressively embarked on her decade and a half campaign to groom Solihull Council staff (staff who she had clearly earmarked as naive, negligent and therefore groomable) to aid and abet her abuse of a severely incapacitated and vulnerable young person.
In the light of your recognition of Camelia Monica Ryder otherwise known a Monica Ryder as a liar if you go on to condone Ryder’s grooming of Professionally Negligent Katy Ivko for Aiding and abetting Ryder’s abuse of James’s incapacity then you too will be hiding behind the secret Court of Protection Deputyships that Ryder perjured from the Court of Protection aided and abetted by Katy Ivko of which the first thing Ryder, newly empowered with the fraudulently obtained COP deputyship did was to commit serious offenses under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 S 16 (according to my barrister) and that would have been the total opposite of what the Court of Protection intended when they granted the secret Deputyships based on the false information Monica Ryder aided and abetted by Katy Ivko fed to the Court. This will also prove my case that the current fraudulent secretly obtained COP Deputyships obtained by Ryder and aided and abetted by Katy Ivko are not fit for purpose as they only serve to protect Camelia Monica Ryder as the abuser of my severely incapacitated young adult son rather than protecting my severely incapacitated young adult son from his abuser.
The existence / non existence of Ryder’s secretly obtained by perjury COP Deputyships to provide cover for her abuse of a severely incapacitated young adult is not beyond all reasonable doubt. It’s not even beyond the lower the balance of probability standard therefore my incapacitated son’s safeguarding website remains his only source of protection until this serious matter this Solihull Council backed abuse by Camelia Monica Ryder otherwise known as Monica Ryder is resolved.
Secret Fraudulent Deputyship or no Secret Fraudulent Deputyship Katy Ivko’s aiding and abetting Camelia Monica Ryder to abuse a severely incapacitated young adult was wrong and Karen Millard’s cover up of Katy Ivko’s aiding and abetting Camelia Monica Ryder to abuse a severely incapacitated young adult was wrong too.
17/10/17
Dear Mr Foden
Complaint against Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council
Thank you for your email sent 15 October in which you express unhappiness with the Ombudsman’s final decision. Having discussed the matter with my line manager, the Assistant Ombudsman, I am sending you information about how the final decision can be reviewed. I need to point out that, other than in exceptional circumstances, the Ombudsman will not review a decision when the complainant requests a review one month or more after the date of the final decision.
You suggest that the Ombudsman’s factual understanding is that your ex-wife Mrs Camelia Monica Ryder had a Court of Protection Deputyship for your son James. I need to stress that this is not the Ombudsman’s understanding of what happened. The ‘what happened’ section of the decision statement refers to Mrs Monica Ryder telling the Council social worker during a telephone conversation on 29 September 2014 that she had a Court of Protection Deputyship for James and the Council, some 12 months later finding out that this was not the case and that the court had granted no such power to Mrs Camelia Monica Ryder or any other person. I need to emphasise that the Ombudsman has made no finding that a Court of Protection Deputyship was in existence at any time during the period you complained about.
With reference to your intention to name a specific member of Local Government Ombudsman staff on your website, I need to point out that Ombudsman decisions are corporate in nature, that an Investigator has delegated power and is acting on behalf of another person (i.e. the Ombudsman), and that it is unacceptable, and in certain contexts illegal, to identify specific members of staff and comment on their decisions on a public website.
Yours sincerely,
Phillip Corina Investigator LGO
15/10/17
Phillip Corina Investigator Local Government Ombudsman
I proved to Phillip Corina beyond all reasonable doubt that Camelia Monica Ryder and her husband Dominic Ryder committed perjury in the Court of Protection if, indeed, it transpired they had obtained secret COP Deputyships that the Court of Protection repeatedly denied existed. Armed with the information that the COP Deputyships were obtained by perjury Philip Corina still said, to paraphrase, that it is okay for the holders of the fraudulent deputyships to abuse a vulnerable adult’s incapacity because they have deputyships.
Therefore, Mr Phillip Corina’s findings prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the currently obtained COP deputyships obtained via perjury by Camelia Monica Ryder, otherwise known as Monica Ryder and Dominic Ryder are not fit for purpose as they do not protect James from Monica Ryder’s aggressive abuse of his incapacity.
It’s debatable whether or not Phillip Corina has aided and abetted the abuse of my severely incapacitated young adult son by trying to cover it up. Instead of reporting that all abuse is bad regardless of whether it is carried out under the cover of fraudulent COP deputyships obtained by committing perjury or not he simply states that the abuse has been carried out under cover of COP deputyship regardless of whether the court orders were fraudulently obtained by perjury or not and that, therefore, makes the abuse of an incapacitated young adult acceptable.
Monica Ryder’s Aggression
Ryder’s Incremental aggression
Libeling and defaming James’s paternal family over a decade and a half is a very aggressive act. This converted to monumental aggression with how Ryder harnessed the pre-groomed professionals to aid and abet her abuse of my severely incapacitated young adult son.
Ryder’s aggression turned Extreme when she committed a monumental act of aggression in the Court of protection when she committed perjury and willfully misled and deceived the court to provide cover for her abuse.
Monica Ryder’s Principal act of aggression
Like a computer hacker harnesses a botnet of compromised pcs to carry out his crimes Ryder harnessed all of the pre-groomed professionals involved in my son’s care to aid and abet her aggressive kidnapping of my severely incapacitated young adult son to move him beyond his loved ones who he grew up with and who grew up with him. The fraudulent court orders that the Court of Protection thought would protect my vulnerable son had been turned on their head in Ryder’s aggressive rage to aid and abet his abuse rather than foster his protection.
The Fraudulent Deputyships are not fit for purpose!!!!!!! They have already been exploited to abuse a vulnerable young adult!!!!
The local authority ombudsman investigator Philip Corina revealed the existence of these secretly obtained by perjury abuse enabling totally unfit for purpose court orders.
The Court of Protection exists to protect vulnerable incapacitated young adults but the illegal court of protection deputyships obtained by perjury by Monica Ryder and Dominic Ryder via perjury were immediately put to unintended use by Camelia Monica Ryder otherwise known as Monica Ryder to abuse a vulnerable young adult by kidnapping him to illegally place him beyond the reach of his family for two months during which his family were distraught with grief and worry.
Camelia Monica Ryder pictured below with co-accused Dominic Ryder (who has aided and abetted Monica Ryder every step of the way to the point of obtaining the fraudulent cop deputyships) tried to block and cover up (using a false claim of harassment same as burglar claiming harassment because his victim wants to hold him to account) publication of emails published on James’s safeguarding website because she knows they prove that both she and I had polite business like communication re contacting James and revealing this would prove she has committed perjury in Court of Protection in addition to libeling the family of a severely incapacitated child now young adult over a decade and a half. The police officer copied into this email is the same police officer Ryder made the false harassment claim to.
There were two major omissions in Philip Corina’s report. He omitted to mention Camelia Monica Ryder’s perjury in the Court of Protection to provide cover from fraudulent Court Of Protection Deputyships obtained by perjury and deceitful manipulation of the facts. He also omitted to mention Solihull Council’s Anti Whistle Blowing Culture and these two major omissions distorted his findings in favour of Camelia Monica Ryder’s abuse of the incapacity of a severely incapacitated young adult and Solihull Council’s unyielding support of the abuse she committed against my son’s incapacity.
In short, to paraphrase, he found that “it is okay to abuse the incapacity of severely incapacitated young adults providing the abuser first commits perjury in the Court of Protection in order to obtain “cover” for their abuse” Philip Corina Local Authority Ombudsman Investigator. I wholeheartedly disagree with him. Abuse of the incapacity of vulnerable severely incapacitated young adults should never be condoned and he is wrong to condone it just because the abusers perjured some Court or Protection orders.
Monica and Dominic Ryder pictured below
The present Day
All of James protection is now derived from his safeguarding website. The website was instrumental in ending his kidnapping and helped the council’s solicitor to understand how James was being abused by Ryder. Indeed it was the council’s own solicitor who ended James’s kidnapping in 2014.
The fraudulent Court of Protection deputyships that Ryder perjured from the court of protection are serving only to protect her as an abuser of James’s incapacity and they do nothing to protect James from her abuse. Indeed the Local Authority Ombudsman said the fraudulent Court of Protection
Natasha Streeter, Upward Cart Ltd manager believes that if a person has a verifiably broken arm proven beyond all reasonable doubt by an Xray clearly depicting the break that the arm is not actually broken if a second opinion is sought from a psychologist who reports that the arm is not actually broken because it’s all in the person’s mind and the person is malingering.
Which report do you trust: the Xray report or the second opinion from the psychologist?
Carer Imran answered correctly and said “you trust the Xray of course”
However Natasha Streeter, Upward Care manager, said it doesn’t matter if the MRI scan clearly, beyond all doubt portrays that my son has a Neuronal Migration Disorder (severely malformed brain) and Microcephally (half-sized brain) and the accompanying report clearly states that my severely incapacitated son will have the lifetime mental capacity of a baby (indicating what support is required to protect him from danger and abuse by carers and co-residents) because our abuse provider organisation: Upward Care Ltd will just hire a bent psychologist to cover up your son’s disability and downgrade it to a touch of autism, a touch of epilepsy and some mild learning difficulties. We will bury the MRI scan and this will allow us to deny your son’s disability, endanger his life, almost kill him on two separate occasions it will allow carers and co-residents to abuse your son’s baby like incapacity and we will cover our backs with the bent psychologist report that buried the MRI scan and allowed carers and co-residents to abuse your son and there is nothing your son can do about it because he’s so incapacitated he doesn’t even know he’s being abused when we abuse him and he is so incapacitated he won’t even know we’re abusing him and he will be happy to be abused and we can do all this because we will deny his disability as defined beyond all reasonable doubt by his MRI scan and we will provide a dangerous care plan for him based on the bent psychologist’s report that will almost kill your son on two separate occasions and allow carers to abuse your son and co-residents to abuse your son because the co-residents all have the mental capacity of thirteen year olds and we will throw your baby like son in with them and leave him at their mercy and if you call the house to seek support for your incapacitated son when you have proven beyond all reasonable doubt that co-resident Downs Jamie has abused and defrauded your son and been abusive to you we will block your phone number and illegally deprive your baby like 26 year old son of his liberty to receive the real care he actually needs based on his MRI scan.
deputyships provide cover to the people who abused his incapacity (hence no compensation to pay) and the people who aided and abetted my son’s abuse namely the professionals Ryder groomed over a decade and a half. This is a travesty and must not be allowed to continue a minute longer than necessary.
I believe the time has come to transfer my sons protection from his safeguarding website (the Court of Public Opinion and the highest Court in the land) back to the Court of Protection and set aside the fraudulent COP deputyships Ryder perjured from the Court and replace them with legally binding deputyships that include James’s paternal family and provide James’s with adequate protection from his principal abuser: Camelia Monica Ryder otherwise known as Monica Ryder.
As soon as James’s protection can be derived from the Court of Protection his safeguarding website can be depreciated. To try to expedite the process I’ll be updating James’s safeguarding website with detailed information regarding the case against Monica Ryder regarding her perjury offences in the Court of Protection she committed by failing to make it absolutely clear to the Court what a fantastic relationship James has always had with his paternal family and how his paternal family raised him during his waking hours until 7 pm every day to the age of 13 and he spent every Monday night and every other weekend with his paternal family until the death of his Nanny and Granddad at the beginning of 2012 and then saw his paternal family every 2 weeks on Skype and watched his brother and sister grow up from babies on Skype. There are fields on the Court forms asking for this very information and for the contact details of all of James’s relatives. Ryder committed perjury in these fields.
Monica Ryder has always known my Birmingham phone number and my email address and I have a virtual address that the Council solicitor wrote to me at while he still had the wrong end of stick. Monica Ryder knows I would have come to England for the deputyship hearing but she didn’t tell the court that. Instead she perjured the Court into providing secret underhand deputyships that the Court of Protection denied existed until the Local Authority Ombudsman admitted to the secret underhand deputyships that were acquired by my son’s principal abuser to provide cover for her abuse of my son’s incapacity.
The fact that Monica Ryder carried out her aggressive perjury in secret is only to be expected from a woman as skilled in the dark arts of deceit and manipulation as Monica Ryder is. She has a blatant disrespect of UK law, the Court of Protection and vulnerable young adults and as such she is the one who is unfit and unworthy to hold COP deputyships of a vulnerable severely incapacitated young adult. She first libeled and defamed his paternal family over a decade and a half behind their backs to groom all of the professionals involved in my son’s care to aid and abet her kidnapping of him by illegally moving him beyond the reach of his family for two months in the summer of 2014 which is also an offence under the Metal Capacity Act 2005 S16. Therefore instead of using the COP deputyship to provide care for my severely incapacitated young adult son she actually used it to abuse him! This is why Camelia Monica Ryder otherwise known as Monica Ryder is unfit and unworthy to hold COP deputyships to provide care for my severely incapacitated young adult son.
When the Court are aware of the truth and rule according to the truth to protect James and not his principal abuser James’s safeguarding website can be depreciated.
I hope this can all be achieved as soon as possible to provide closure of the 3 year nightmare since James kidnapping and the overnight shock that Ryder had libeled and defamed James family over a decade and a half to groom all of the professionals involved in my incapacitated son’s care to aid and abet her abuse of his incapacity.
When I disclose this information on James’s safeguarding website I’ll copy you and Natasha in and also the Local authority Ombudsman investigator Mr Phillip Corina as his summary paraphrased that its okay to abuse the incapacity of vulnerable adults providing that the abuser first commits perjury in the Court of Protection to provide themselves with cover for the abuse they commit is not acceptable. I completely disagree with his conclusion because no vulnerable person should ever be abused for any reason!
The fact that aggressive perjury was carried out in secret is only to be expected from a woman as skilled in the dark arts of deceit and manipulation as Ryder is.
Ryder has a blatant disrespect of UK law, the Court of Protection and vulnerable young adults and as such they are both unfit and is unworthy to hold an exclusive deputyship of a vulnerable adult.
I will also be copying the police in in order to get this matter resolved by shifting the protection the COP deputyships provide from the vulnerable person’s abuser to the vulnerable person.
This is very important because if Sara Hands is ever replaced by another naive and negligent Katie Ivco type social worker, Ryder and her aggression will seize the opportunity to start grooming her and another aggressive council backed shock kidnapping of my severely incapacitated young adult son will recur.
Closure of my 3 year nightmare requires new COP Deputyships to prevent a future kidnapping and further offences against my disabled son’s incapacity.
Click here to see James and Sasha Christmas 2014 in the Big Wok Birmingham
Click here to see James on the bus with his youngest brother
Please click here to download social worker Katy Ivco’s report that completely covered up Mrs Ryder’s abuse of James’s incapacity. Although it appears from the page numbering scheme that pages 2 and 4 are omitted the included pages are the whole report that was sent to me and these pages clearly demonstrate that my barrister derived report of offences being committed by the principal carer was omitted as the social worker said it would be and Mrs Ryder’s misleading comments that I had no opportunity to dispute were included in full.
03/07/15
Click here for Solihull Council’s Cover Up of James’s abuse of his incapacity by his principal carer: Mrs Camelia Monica Ryder, otherwise known as Monica Ryder fully supported by James’s renegade Social Worker: Katy Ivco and fully covered up by Solihull Council’s cover up team consisting of Alison Coppock, Liz Gillespie and Karen Millard. If these named professionally negligent individuals disagree with the above statement please put your solicitors in touch with me so we can resolve the matter. Failure to put your solicitors in touch with me is proof that the above statement is true and correct.
Statutory Complaint
1 Solihull Social Services repeatedly ignored legitimate and cogent barrister derived complaints of a principal carer’s abuse of a totally defenseless, severely incapacitated vulnerable young adult’s incapacity. This is the whole purpose of the complaint – the rest is detail that builds on this. From late last autumn to this day not a single person from Solihull Social Services has offered me any reassurance whatsoever that that they have had a quiet and diplomatic word with the social worker’s client’s principal carer to advise her of her obligations under the Mental Capacity Act Section 16 and the Disability Discrimination Laws in order to ensure that the social worker’s client (the vulnerable young adult’s) rights under the Acts are adhered to. It is my barrister’s opinion that offences under the above Acts were committed and I agree with him. There is nothing in this complaint about personal relationships or personal opinion and by Solihull Council trying to make it about personal opinion and personal relationships does not stand up to scrutiny and therefore does not offer the council a defence / excuse / get out of jail free card.
2. Katy Ivco, the Social Worker, was pre-groomed by the the social worker’s client’s principal carer and as a result of this the social worker’s manner was frosty during her first contact with you. Why else would Katy have been frosty with you when she had never before communicated with you or met you?
3. During conversation, the social worker referred to your “frustration”, which you feel seriously underestimated the impact the situation had had on you. You were terrified at the social worker’s client’s virtual kidnapping by his principal carer. The social worker’s client’s principal carer, to late last summer, kept her promise to replace your mother as the facilitator of the social worker’s client’s Skype contact since April 2012 prior to the shock of her making herself incommunicado to activate the social worker’s client’s virtual kidnapping. It was negligent of Katy Ivco to dismiss feelings of terror as mere frustration. This is not only Deprivation of Liberty its Disability Discrimination because the social worker’s client’s non incapacitated peers would simply initiate their own contact with their loved ones. You had had no contact with the social worker’s client for two months, due to the social worker’s client’s principal carer “illegally” (under the terms of the Mental Capacity Act as a carer of a severely incapacitated young adult) making herself incommunicado by changing her phone number and depriving the social worker’s client of
his liberty to continue his regular contact with his loved ones who he grew up with and who grew up with him. This, according to your barrister, was a total deprivation of a vulnerable young man’s liberty to maintain his Skype contact with his loved ones who he grew up with and who grew up with him. You also explained to the WPC investigating the abuse of your vulnerable severely incapacitated son by the social worker’s client’s principal carer’s offences under the Section 16 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Disability Discrimination laws (my barrister’s opinion) that you’ve been pleading with the social worker’s client’s principal carer since autumn last year to give you the contact details of her solicitor so that you can put the charges laid down by your barrister directly to the social worker’s client’s principal carer’s solicitor to enable him or her to advise the social worker’s client’s principal carer that she has no choice but to ensure that the social worker’s client’s rights under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Disability Discrimination laws are fully adhered to. The social worker’s client’s principal carer has so far, after many months refused to give you the contact details of her solicitor. This is particularly important as Solihull Social Services repeatedly ignored your pleas to advise the social worker’s client’s principal carer of her obligations under the aforementioned Acts of Parliament. This is the key point in the complaint.
4. The Social worker stated that the social worker’s client’s principal carer was the social worker’s client’ carer and if the social worker’s client’s principal carer did not want the social worker’s client to have contact with his love ones, then that was okay as it was up to her to decide such things. When you tried to disagree with this, the social worker advised you to take legal advice.
5. When you sought legal advice as the social worker had suggested, you discovered via your barrister, that the social worker’s client was subject to Court of Protection and that the social worker’s client’s principal carer was committing an offence under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 – Section 16, by illegally placing the social worker’s client beyond the reach of his loved ones. You feel that the social worker should have known and advised you of both of these things and was withholding such information. By dismissing your concerns about the social worker’s client’s rights under the above Acts not being adhered to, the social worker was treating the social worker’s client like the matter was a contact issue regarding a child when, indeed the case was much more serious than that. Your barrister advised you that the social worker was misinforming you and the evidence you requested of my communication with the social worker points exactly to that. This is not personal opinion and not a single issue in this complaint is about personal relationships.
6. You relayed the legal information provided by your barrister to the social worker, in relation to Court of Protection and the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the social worker ignored this. This should have been included in the report the social worker prepared about the social worker’s client. The social worker wrote “a pack of lies” in the report, in piecemeal fashion which had been provided directly from the social worker’s client’s principal carer. This was aiding and abetting the abuse by the social worker’s client’s principal carer, of the social worker’s client and was to circumvent the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The social worker was working against her client (the social worker’s client) and for the abuser (the social worker’s client’s principal carer). The Mental Capacity Act 2005 allows for incapacitated people to make their own decisions where they are able to do so, but the social worker’s client does not have the capacity to decide whether or not he wishes to see people, as he almost always says no but when he finds out that he is not going to see them, he then gets upset.
Your Desired Outcomes
1. Categorical reassurance that when the social worker’s client’s principal carer re-offends, that Social Services will “come down” on the social worker’s client’ side and not on his abuser’s.
2. Solihull Adults Social Care Services to ensure that when the social worker’s client is no longer at college, the weekly Skype connection with his family is maintained as it is now at his now college, along with actual contact, when the family come to visit the children in England, bringing the four children together.
3. Recognition by Solihull Adults Social Care Services of the social worker’s client’s principal carer’s less than candid and less than truthful communication that she used to manipulate the professionals involved in the social worker’s client’s care by the total absence of truth in the communication between the social worker’s client’s principal carer and the social worker both in the preliminary communication and the social worker’s client’s principal carer’s submission to the social worker’s report about her client.
4. Recognition by Solihull Social Services that both of the social worker’s client’s parents should take the WPC dealing with the investigation into the social worker’s client’s principal carer’s offences under the Mental Capacity Act 2005’s advice that they should communicate like adults. And recognition that both of the social worker’s client’s parents should obtain COP Deputyships for the social worker’s client’s personal welfare that recognise their respective roles past present and future. This is the best way to prevent the social worker’s client’s principal carer from misleading the professionals in the social worker’s client’s care to take a negative view of the social worker’s client’s father and brothers and sister and prevent the social worker’s client’s principal carer from again abusing the social worker’s client’s incapacity to illegally deprive him of or make it difficult for him to contact his loved ones who he grew up with and who grew up with him.
You’ve seen the COP forms yourself and you are fully aware of the requirements to obtain a “legally binding” COP deputyship and these include all involved parties being included on the form so they can be invited to participate in the court process. As the social worker’s client’s father, a significant participant in the social worker’s client’s day time care to the age of 13, defender of the social worker’s client whenever he’s been in trouble ( You single handedly got him off inappropriate painful Ritalin drug therapy, you single handedly won a SENDIST Tribunal for him (led to 2 to 1 care when 1 to 1 was already denied), you single handedly stopped his principal carer abusing his incapacity to airbrush his loved ones out of his life when the social worker’s client’s principal carer misled his college and Solihull Social Services and you are the father of his two younger brothers and younger sister – you are undisputedly a significant player in the social worker’s client’s life who is required to be named on the COP forms for the COP orders to be legally binding.)
5 Therefore you need Solihull Social Services to fully recognise that there is no valid COP Deputyship in force until one is obtained by legal means, without deceit, perjury and cover up and lifelong key people / relatives in the social worker’s client’s life being left out of the process in a deceitful manner.
6 Reassurance that you will be kept in the loop with communication about any significant changes in the social worker’s client’s living accommodation, so that you are able to help the social worker’s client keep a relatively close living proximity to his brother Sasha, who lives in Solihull.
7. To clear your name with Adults Social Care Services, following the libeling and defamation of your character by the social worker’s client’s principal carer.
8. For a social worker to finally, after many months of your pleading to social services falling on deaf ears, to communicate to the social worker’s client’s principal carer, that a cogent barrister derived report of abuse of the incapacity of a very seriously incapacitated, totally vulnerable young adult under both the Mental Capacity Act 2005 Section 16 and the Disability Discrimination Laws to request a change of behaviour by the social worker’s client’s principal carer to ensure that the rights of the social worker’s client under both the Mental capacity Act 2005 Section 16 and the Disability Discrimination Laws to maintain his weekly Skype contact with his loved ones and actual contact when his loved ones who he grew up with and who grew up with him visit him and for social services to back up this communication with their legal duty to report the social worker’s client’s principal carer to the police for abuse of a seriously incapacitated young adult should the social worker’s client commit such offences against a totally vulnerable and completely incapacitated young adult again.
9. Recognition that the the whole purpose of your many months of intense communication between yourself, social services and all professionals involved in the social worker’s clients care is and has been to clear your name, get universal recognition of offenses committed by the social worker’s client’s principal carer which led to the social worker’s client’s rights not being adhered to with a view to the social worker’s client’s principal carer not repeat offending so that you don’t have to suffer such a devastating period of terror of the social worker’s client’s incapacity being abused by his principal carer lasting some 10 months so far, ever again so that you can relax and enjoy your life in peace and harmony without having to keep looking over your shoulder to see when the social worker’s client’s principal carer is going to abuse the social worker’s client’s incapacity again in another attempt to airbrush his loved ones out of is life.
End of Statutory Complaint
Mrs Camelia Monica Ryder, a Romanian woman from Solihull had a severe impact on my life and my family’s life since she served up one of her regular shock devastations on a very cold plate by libelling James’s father and brothers to Social services, and James’s new college as unfit and unworthy to see James at his college. This highly targeted defamation (for maximum devastation to our lives) has completely devastated my life for the past 12 months and so far Mrs Ryder has not paid a single penny of compensation. Not even for the 12 months of work she ordered for me to clear mine and my family’s names and stop her from abusing my defenceless 20 year old sons incapacity by harnessing his incapacity to deprive him of his loved ones he grew up with and who grew up with him and who will one day be all he has left to make sure he’s ok.
She did not redact the names of James’s father and brothers during her rampage of libel and defamation to the people who are empowered to determine, via the positions they hold over my defenceless incapacitated 20 year old son, whether James’s father and brothers can live their lives in peace and harmony or torment and distress and Monica Ryder successfully harnessed the power of these people: Solihull Social Services and my son’s new college, through her proficiency in the dark arts of deceitful manipulation, to bolster her false aura of respectability to alter the opinions of these powerful professionals in James’s father and brother’ and sister’s lives so that these professionals would, and did, cause severe harm and distress to our lives as a direct consequence of Monica Ryder’s opinion altering un-redacted defamation and libel against us. Even though she did not redact our names as she targeted her libel and defamation at the people who matter in our lives I am still going to partially redact her name, Monica Ryder from Solihull’s name by not revealing her initials as I expose her abuse of James’s incapacity and her grooming of Solihull Social Services and James’s college.
In order to protect myself from a possible 5 year jail term, under current government thinking, following abuses of vulnerable individuals at Rotherham and at Stoke Mandeville Hospital I have a duty of care to my defenceless and completely vulnerable totally incapacitated 20 year old young adult son who has a mental age of circa 4 years old, as his lifelong legal adviser when he’s been in trouble, and father, to expose his mother’s cruel abuse of his incapacity her and her PHD level skill set in the Dark Art of Deceitful Manipulation (Jimmy Savile Style) using a false aura of respectability to groom college X and Solihull Social Services and attempt to groom the police with her libellous and defamatory pack of lies that James’s family who she left James with for most of his waking hours to the age of 13 and every other weekend until my parents died just 3 years ago were unfit and unworthy to Skype him and visit him at his new residential college during our 2 month annual trips to England.
James’s new residential college were initially taken in by Monica Ryder’s grooming of their organisation using her Savile style deceitfully manipulative false aura of respectability and the college did commit some offences under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, Section 16 and the Disability Discrimination laws as a result but the college now have an understanding of how Ryder groomed them and potentially temporarily tarnished their reputation.
I must make clear that all issues with the college are now cleared up and my disabled son’s rights to see his loving father, step mum, brothers and sister unhindered are now fully adhered to and James’s father and brother’s names that Ryder relentlessly libelled as unfit and unworthy to contact their son and brother, suddenly and without warning, after a lifetime of contact with him are now cleared with the college.
It’s now necessary to clear my name and the names of my son’s and daughter (who will one day be the only family James has left to keep an eye on him) with Solihull Social Services – the other significant organisation Mrs Ryder groomed to aid and abet her in her abuse of my son’s incapacity by committing offences under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Libel Laws.
Ryder then went on to libel James’s father to the police with a libellous and false claim that carrying out my duty to my son to stop his mother illegally abusing his incapacity by committing offences under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Disability Discrimination Laws amounted to harassment of her!!! This ridiculous assertion is like a burglar complaining to the police that his victim is harassing him because he wants his belongings back and intends to press charges against the burglar. How ridiculous is that?
The police were very impartial and they heard my counter complaint against Ryder for abusing the incapacity of a very vulnerable and incapacitated young adult by committing offences under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Disability Discrimination Laws and determined that the matter is a matter for our respective solicitors.
I’ve, following social worker Katy Ivco’s advice, and later the police’s advice and taken all the legal advice I need to successfully resolve this matter but the problem is that Mrs Ryder has not and I’ve begged her since the end of last year to give me the contact details of her solicitor so that I can put the charges my barrister laid down against Mrs Ryder directly to her solicitor.
I recently received a telephone call from the WPC investigating my complaints against Mrs Ryder failing to comply with her obligations under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Disability Discrimination laws and she told me exactly what my barrister told me in September that it’s not a matter for the police. She said it’s a matter to be dealt with like two adults (the WPC’s own words) with either direct father to mother communication (the most intelligent solution) or father to mother’s solicitor as father cannot afford a solicitor and father to nobody is not an option.
I have been told that the WPC investigating Mrs Ryder’s libellous complaint against me has told Mrs Ryder the same thing.
I explained that it is not easy to communicate with Mrs Ryder like an adult because two months prior to my son’s placement at College X she threw all of her toys out of the pram, changed her phone number and made herself incommunicado for absolutely no reason whatsoever prior to her going a 3 month rampage of harassment of my son’s college to goad them to aid and abet her to abuse my son’s incapacity to airbrush his loved ones out of his life.
Prior to this and for the whole 3 years since Ryder took over from my mother in connecting J’s Skype calls Ryder maintained a business like relationship with James’s father and brothers and all was well and there were no issues and nothing to complain about. If there were then the professionals involved in my son’s care would have known about it as it happened due to my candid, open and honest personality – the complete opposite of Mrs Ryder’s deceitful and manipulative personality. I even trusted her to negotiate with social services and choose James a good local residential college following the fiasco of the last transition of my son’s school when I was asked to sign him into M School – the best for him because Mrs Ryder was having another attack of childishness.
The police office told me, like my barrister, that Mrs Ryder and I are free to apply to the court of Protection for deputyship of James for either personal care, finance and affairs or both. I spoke directly to the court of protection in September and they told me that to date Mrs Ryder has not applied for any deputyships and if she has they would carry no legal authority if they were obtained without my participation in the process. Likewise, I would require her participation in the process for me to obtain a deputyship.
In the absence of Court of Protection Deputyships, Mrs Ryder and I must be guided by the principles laid down by Parliament in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Disability Discrimination Laws. The WPC said Mrs Ryder and I should communicate like “adults” – the problem is that Mrs Ryder has some sort of issue whereby she cannot behave like an adult and requires herself to spin up a childlike and ridiculous deceitfully manipulative Savile like false story in order to create the false aura of respectability that she craves so much that she can harness in order to harm James and his father, brothers and sister probably due to the fact that she has lived as lie during the past 23 years she has lived in England and for the previous 23 years when she lived in Romania. Once she is unguarded from her false aura of respectability its plain for all to see that Mrs Ryder is a very, very angry woman and the targets for her totally unjustified anger are my defenceless son and his father and brothers and sister.
Now that James is back in touch with his family it’s very important that social services like the police from the beginning and James’s college once they saw through Mrs Ryder’s false aura of respectability see through her false aura of respectability too because James’s mother is so cruel, vindictive and angry when she’s off her guard that she will kidnap James again by illegally nudging him off the radar, just as she did in the two months prior to James’s placement at his college when she made herself incommunicado and pushed James off the radar for 2 months while his distraught family had no idea where he was or, indeed if he was alive or dead.
James must have been petrified as he was placed into a residential college during a time when he was being illegally deprived of his fortnightly Skype contact with his loved ones as his mother: Mrs Ryder abused his incapacity in full view and in the full knowledge and possibly even with the tacit approval of Solihull Social Services who Mrs Ryder had pre-groomed with her deceitful manipulative Savile style false aura of respectability personality. The purpose of this website is to ensure that she is never allowed to do this again!!!! This is why she must be brought to account through my legal obligation to my defenceless incapacitated son via honest exposure which is the polar opposite to deceitful manipulation.
Please take Mrs Ryder’s constant refusal to appoint a solicitor to answer the charges my barrister laid against Mrs Ryder back in the Autumn as proof that my barrister and I are right and reassure James’s father and brothers that their names are now cleared and answer the following legitimate concerns:
1 Solihull Social Services must recognise that Mrs Ryder’s behaviour during the last 6 months has fallen short of compliant with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Disability Discrimination laws. I believe failure to recognise this will lead to further abuse of my son’s incapacity by his mother and cause to power up the web servers again . I also assert that failure to recognise such blatant abuse carried out in plain site of everybody amounts to negligence.
2 Why did J’s father receive such a frosty telephone / email reception by the Solihull Adult Social Services in the weeks prior to and after my son’s placement at College X. Why was my reception so frosty? What had I done wrong? This was a particularly stressful period in my life when Mrs Ryder had harnessed my son’s incapacity to illegally kidnap him (in all but name) and put him beyond the reach of his loved ones to airbrush them out of his life just prior to her rampage of harassment of College X to aid and her to abuse my son’s incapacity (I have documentary evidence to back this up). I believe any judge would consider these to be reasonable questions. Please answer them.
3 Why did nobody listen to my repeated reports of James’s mother’s abuse of my vulnerable and incapacitated son??? There are echoes of Stoke Mandeville’s victims not being listened to here or in my case being brushed off. My original contribution to James’s Social Worker Report that contained my barrister’s words was cast aside and Mrs Ryder was given freedom to write a pack of lies in a desperate attempt to circumvent the Mental Capacity Act 2005 by repeatedly saying James likes to make his own decisions when she knows full well he doesn’t have the capacity to make decisions such as “do you want to see Sasha?” James will instinctively say no because he doesn’t have the capacity to know that in saying no he will be forfeiting a fantastic time with his brother. Mrs Ryder is all to aware of this and her contribution to the social worker’s report is smoking gun evidence of the lengths she will go to to deprive James of his liberty to spend actual time and Skype time with his loved ones. Mrs Ryder should be ashamed of herself for her contribution to the Social Worker’s report and the Social Worker: Katy Ivco should be ashamed of herself for letting Mrs Ryder write it!
4 How do I report Mrs Ryder’s abuse of my vulnerable son’s incapacity other than emailing the Social Services who simply ignore all of my cogent barrister supported complaints of Mrs Ryder’s abuse of my son’s incapacity and publishing it on the Internet in despair?
5 How do I ensure I’m kept in the loop so that James’s abusive mother is never given the freedom to wage such a hate campaign against James and his family ever again and I don’t have to spend two months tracking him down.
I do not believe any judge would consider any of the the above points unreasonable.
Negotiation is better than a long legal battle you probably wouldn’t win.
James’s four support sites are hosted on free speech servers and they can only be taken down when his rights under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Disability Discrimination laws are fully adhered to. I have a duty to protect him from his abusive mother and anybody she takes into her confidence. I could be jailed for failing to do so.
As soon as we can deal with the points above to mutual satisfaction we can power down the web servers ONCE AND FOR ALL!
Sample Evidence
27/08/2014
Hi Katy (Ivco)
I’m James’s father and I can’t get through to James’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 20 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 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 partner 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 school RC to school M which turned out to be a fantastic move for James even though Mrs Ryder sadly opposed it at the time.
Please help.
Kind regards
Simon
28/08/2014
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 Mrs Ryder. Unfortunately I am not able to facilitate access to either Mrs Ryder or James. 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,
Katy
Hi Katy
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 James made at school M. I particularly like the ICT – perfect for James’s 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 A
Thank you and thank you to all staff at school M for all their help with James. James 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 James’s residential place at college Q – she said a residential college could be the making of James.
Thanks again
Kind regards
Simon
Hi Katy (Ivco – 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 Q. James’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 James 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 James’s previous social worker M C when Mrs Ryder started to participate in James’s 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 James during a seizure and she upheld James’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 not seeking extra contact. We just need this confirming at James’s new address at college Q.
Two of James’s carers: Arthur and Jean 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 10 year old brother Sasha will be able to care for him. J already has his 10 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 Simone. 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. Mrs Ryder 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’s family
James on the bus with his youngest brother:
Sasha grew up with James and here they are when Sasha was a toddler:
James’s 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
Please add to my son’s contact list: Father Simon, Cherma (Step mother), Alexander (Sasha) (James’s 10 year old brother and future care contact when James’s parents are no longer around), and Sirus (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).
Mrs Ryder 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 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 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 Q will be a good placement for James and I hope he will do very well there.
Kind regards,
Katy
The problem with Social Worker Katy Ivcos’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 Katy.
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 James’s paternal family who Mrs Ryder left James with until 7pm every weekday and every other weekend for most of his life and his 10 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’s 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 James’s 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 James of his liberty to receive his family as guests for short visits to College X where James 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 James 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 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 Mrs Ryder 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
Social Worker Katy Ivco completely covered up my barrister’s advice as my contribution to James’s report and published a complete pack of lies from Mrs Ryder. To the social worker’s 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 James’s abuser while facilitating James’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 James’s family’s desperate pleas to resume contact with James (that should never have been broken off) as a “rant” and threatens to further abuse James’s incapacity and his family by yet again threatening to break off communication.
This whole 7 months of terror she has unilaterally inflicted on James 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 James and his family suffer at her pleasure” see below:
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 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 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: 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 James’s 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’s 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 James’s 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 James care will pass to myself as James father and lifelong participant in James 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 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’S 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.
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 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.
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 Mrs Ryder 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 Mrs Ryder let us have J 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
James’s Social Worker Katy Ivco completely ignored this cogent emailed report of Mrs Ryder’s abuse of James’s incapacity. This has to be professional Negligence.
Police Complaint against Mrs Ryder
23/03/15
How did James’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?
James’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 James’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 James’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 James’s Mother has offended under and as my disabled son’s life time legal representative, I have the charges ready to put directly to James’s Mother’s solicitor.
The bottom line is that James’s Mother has terrorised James’s paternal family since she all but kidnapped my defenceless seriously disabled son James late last summer and commence to deny him his regular Skype and actual contact he’d always enjoyed with his father and brothers. James’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 James from his mother’s illegal abuse of his severe incapacity James’s father has had to single handedly expose how Solihull Social Services and College X Birmingham have been groomed by James’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 plain 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 James’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
James’s Mother
The police are copied into this email.
I’ve always been James’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 James’s incapacity and your harassment of his residential college to aid and abet you in your abuse of James’s incapacity. I have a duty to report this and I am legally obliged to copy in James’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 James 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 James’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 James’s incapacity is to give me the contact details of your solicitor. Your abuse of Jamesand James’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 James’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
James’s Father
21 March 2015
PC X to James’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 Ryder.
She was concerned about recent e-mails that she has received and e-mails that you have sent to other agencies with personal information about herself and details of past events.
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 James’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 James’s Mother and to please use your solicitor for any future communication.
I have offered the same advice to James’s Mother.
It appears evident that the way in which both parties schedule times to see and speak with your son JAMES 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 James’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 James’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
James’s father’s response
James’s father’s response to the libellous allegations James’s Mother has made about James’s father to the police:
I’ve always been James’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 James’s Mother’s abuse of James’s incapacity and her harassment of his residential college to aid and abet her in her abuse of James’s incapacity. I have a duty to report this and I am legally obliged to copy in James’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 James to clear my name at the LEA and Social services and COLLEGE X as I have grounds to believe James’s Mother libelled his father to them. This is not harassment!!!!!!!!!
James’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 Monica Ryder’s’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 James’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 James’s Mother’s solicitors’ contact details. I’m only hindered by not having James’s Mother’s solicitor’s contact details.
I wish to inform James’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 James’s Mother directly until either the matter is resolved of she gives me the contact details of her solicitor.
I understand that James’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 James’s Mother to end the 6 month torment and terror she has inflicted on James’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 James’s Mother’s 6 month rampage of harassment of his college to aid and abet her in your abuse of James’s incapacity is for her to give me the contact details of her solicitor. Her abuse of James and James’s family must end soon.
The Police, LEA, Social Services, COLLEGE X and James’s paternal family will all be very relieved when I have the contact details of James’s Mother’s solicitor so the nightmare she has unilaterally inflicted on everybody can be permanently concluded.
Yours sincerely
Simon – James’s Father
01/11/14 from Mrs Ryder
I expect James’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 James’s 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 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? Whatever 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 James 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.
Simon