Click here for Monica Ryder’s Emails
Click here for Karen Millards Lost Evidence
06/08/15
Dear Local Authority Ombudsman
Two weeks ago Solihull Council’s Chief Cover Up Officer (CCO) Karen Millard contacted the boss (Rita Rogers) of the negligent Social Worker (Katy Ivco) and this resulted a week later in the end of the abuse of my disabled son’s incapacity that has for one year been practiced by his principal carer (Camellia Monica Ryder otherwise known as Monica Ryder) and fully supported by his negligent Social Worker Katy Ivco who neglected to ascertain if the principal carer told her the truth or not as Ryder groomed Ivco to aid and abet the abuse of James’s incapacity to deprive him of his loved ones who he grew up with and who grew up with him by highly targeted libeling of James family (father, two brothers and sister) as unfit and unworthy to contact him at his residential college immediately following two months of virtual kidnap as James’s incapacity was abused to push him under the radar for 2 months leaving his family no idea of where he was or indeed if he was alive or dead. The Social worker’s negligent support of James’s abuse of his incapacity was fully supported by Solihull Council’s complaints handling team of Alison Coppock, Liz Gillespie and Karen Millard who all worked relentlessly to cover up the abuse of James’s incapacity and the Social Worker’s support of the abuse of his incapacity.
James saw his brother and sister on Skype last week. It really does look like the abuse has stopped now. This could only have happened if Solihull Social Services had a quiet word in his abuser’s to advise her of her obligations under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 S16 and the Disability Discrimination Laws.
Why did they stop the abuse now?
Why did they not stop the abuse 12 months ago when I first reported it? If they had stopped the abuse 12 months ago it would have spared me a year of my life, given me more time to spend with my 4 children and it would not have deprived me of countless hours that I should have been earning money for my family that I was forced to spend exposing abuse, support of abuse by Social workers and support of negligent social workers by Solihull Councils corrupt complaints handling team.
I am not happy!!!
Please put right the wrongs Solihull Council have inflicted on an innocent family.
Here is a reminder of my gentle and extremely temperate (under the circumstances) communication with the no known to be negligent Social Worker: Katy Ivco:
From: Simon Foden [mailto:simon@foden.net]
Sent: 27 August 2014 16:38
To: Ivko, Katy (Adult Social Care – Solihull MBC)
Subject: FW: Concern about the very vulnerable James Foden
Importance: High
Hi Katy
I’m James Foden’s father and I can’t get through to James’s mother Monica. She’s stopped answering all messages and it looks like shes’s changed her phone number. I’m very worried about my son because he’s so severely disabled being 19 years old with a mental age of less than two.
Normally I see him once a month on Skype but for the last two weeks Monica’s telephone has been unobtainable and and she has stopped responding to email and Skype.
I’ve lived in Thailand since I was bankrupted and made homeless by the property crash in 2008 so I feel very cut off from what ever is happening at the moment with James’s transition from school to a residential care environment.
I asked Monica for James to go to a residential college or similar not too far from Solihull so James’s brother Sasha who lives in Solihull can visit him and my new family (I have a 1 and a half year old boy called Sirus and my girlfriend is expecting one more child) can visit James during our annual trips to England the next one being in November.
Please do a health and safety check on James to ensure he’s ok and his needs are being met and help me to find the most appropriate place for James now he’s finished school. My parents have both sadly died a couple of years ago and my second wife left me when we became homeless in 2008 so I’m much more alone now than during James’s transition from Reynalds Cross to Merstone school which turned out to be a fantastic move for James even though Monica sadly opposed it at the time.
Please help.
Kind regards
Simon
Yours sincerely
Simon Foden
The Negligent Social Worker’s Reply:
Hi Simon,
Thank you for your email. I’m aware that you have tried to call me a couple of times and I have just tried to call you back but unfortunately I cannot get through. I believe your contact number does not allow calls from private numbers and that is blocking my call. If you would like to try calling again, I will be in this morning.
I am sorry to hear that you have not been able to get through to Monica. Unfortunately I am not able to facilitate access to either Monica or James. I spoke to Monica earlier this week and she told me that James is doing well so I hope that reassures you. Please do try calling again if you would like to discuss this further. I will be on annual leave after today, returning 10 September.
Kind regards,
Katy
Katy Ivko
Social worker
South Support Planning Team
3 The Green
Shirley
Solihull
B90 4LA
0121 704 8007 etx 3189
Work mobile: 07795450849
The Negligent Social Worker implied in her reply (see the evidence page) that Ryder is his principal carer and, as such, if she wants to abuse my son’s incapacity to deprive him of his loved ones who he grew up with and who grew up with him she is perfect entitled to do so and she said I should take legal advice. When I followed her advice and told my barrister explained Ryder was offending under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 S 16 and the Disability discrimination laws by making decisions for James against his best interests and putting James at a disadvantage to his non incapacitated peers she ignored the legal advice and continued to cover up Ryder’s abuse of James’s incapacity.
20/07/15
Dear Mr James
Baby Si and Baby Simone have not seen James for 3 weeks now and James hasn’t seen his brother and sister (see end of message). Simone has grown a lot in the last 3 weeks and James is missing out on his sister’s development.
Your reply to my son’s complaint makes clear that you’ve escalated the matter to council level rather than merely a Social Services matter. Where initially only Katy Ivco was supporting Camelia Monica Ryder’s abuse of my son’s incapacity now the whole Solihull Council Complaint’s Team are supporting Camelia Monica Ryder’s abuse of my son’s incapacity both by supporting the Social Worker’s aiding and abetting of my son’s abuse of his incapacity and Mrs Ryder’s abuse of his incapacity directly. Therefore I’ve substantially enhanced James’s website to dutifully expose the abuse of his incapacity by Alison Coppock, Liz Gillespie, Karen Millard and the renegade Social Worker: Katy Ivco. These individuals have joined Mrs Ryder and the renegade social worker in trying to libellously rewrite the history of James’s loving relationship with his father, two brothers, sister and grandparents before they died 3 years ago. Alison Coppock, Liz Gillespie and Karen Millard now join Katy Ivco as Solihull Council Workers who have abuse my son’s incapacity and are dutifully exposed in various parts of the text of James’s website and on his new “Slider” Facility that summarises the matter.
As the abuse of James’s incapacity has been escalated to Council level James’s website has too. It has been moved from http://www.solihullsocialservices.com to https://www.solihullcouncil.com to keep up with where the matter has been escalated to.
I’m still keen to get the ear of council solicitors in order to move the matter forward as solicitors are bound by UK law whereas Solihull Council is apparently not. Council solicitors can contact me simon@foden.net .
I understand the matter is now with the ombudsman since your team covered up the abuse of my son’s incapacity and it would be helpful if the LGO can help James but if the Onbudsman sides with the Council then James will still enjoy the protection of the “will” of Parliament by way of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 Section 16, the Disability Discrimination Laws, his father’s dutiful exposure of his abuse and his all exposing website.
Yours sincerely
Simon Foden
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 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.
Local Authority Onbudsman
04/07/15
Dear Mr Nevols,
Although the abuse of James’s incapacity stopped when the college solicitors realised they were initially libelling James’s father and aiding and abetting his abuser – his principal carer Mrs Camelia Monica Ryder, otherwise known as Monica Ryder to abuse his incapacity it doesn’t mean that the abuse did not occur in the first place. The issue with the college was satisfactorily concluded when the college solicitors saw the light on the Road to Damascus.
Solihull Council have undergone no such conversion. The argument put forward by Solihull Council’s cover up team that James’s principal carer did not abuse James because she is nolonger abusing him any more does not stand up to scrutiny and now the cover up team of Alison Coppock, Liz Gillespie, and Karen Millard are all, perfectly legally, and deservedly, named and shamed on James’s support website for aiding and abetting my son’s abuse by covering up for James’s renegade social worker Katy Ivco. Also, the renegade social worker: Katy Ivco is named and shamed for aiding and abetting my son’s abuse by covering up the abuse of my son’s incapacity by his principal carer whose offenses under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 Section 16 and the Disability Discrimination Laws are well known.
The following people: Alison Coppock, Liz Gillespie, Karen Millard and Katy Ivco cannot take legal action for James’s father’s dutiful exposure of their abuse of James’s incapacity by covering up for his abuser because their arguments do not stand up to scrutiny. If they do think they have a legal case against me for deservedly exposing them for abusing my son’s incapacity by aiding and abetting his abuser by covering up her abuse then they must put their solicitor in touch with me. My email address is simon@foden.net – I’m very easily contactable.
I still have not heard from James’s principal abuser: Mrs Camelia Monica Ryder, otherwise known as Monica Ryder’s solicitor and I’ve been seeking her solicitor’s contact details since late last summer.
Therefore, as I’ve proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the abuse James suffered at the hands of his principal carer for two solid months (and supported by his renegade social worker) prior to his placement at his college while his incapacity was abused by his principal carer and the sporadic abuse of his incapacity he suffered while at his college until the college legal team saw reason, please review my complaint against Solihull Adult Social Services. I would also like to add to the complaint the blatant way the complaints handling team bent over backwards to cover up the abuse my son suffered at the expense of his abuser and renegade social worker (all beautifully documented on James’s website) – i.e. being illegally deprived of his loved ones (Mental Capacity Act 2005 Section 16) and illegally discriminated against because of his disability by being put at a disadvantage to his non incapacitated peers who would just Skype and visit their loved ones themselves regardless of any abuser telling them they cannot.
Please take the absence of challenge by the exposed parties for my dutiful public exposure of their abuse as proof of their involvement in my son’s abuse of his incapacity.
Your sincerely
Simon Foden
Dear Mr Nevols
I completely reject Solihull Council’s cover up and denial of my complaint.
The key evidence they ignored is that there were no issues between James’s principal carer and I in the years since his principal carer took over from my mother following both parents losing their battles with cancer at the end of 2011. I would either call or sometimes email the principal carer and she would set up James’s Skype chats with his family approx. once a fortnight. Please read these emails available to download as a zip file on James’s website:http://www.solihullsocialservices.com/wp-content/uploads/Monica_Emails.zip . Once unzipped each email can be opened in Outlook simply by clicking on the unzipped message file. It soon became clear I had been libelled by James’s principal carer in a highly targeted manner to produce the maximum distress to me to all of the professionals involved in my son’s care judging by the reception they gave me during my time of distress while James was off the radar. The only possible explanation for this shock response to a father nobody seemed to know existed added to the distress on my vulnerable son’s disappearance.
There were no issues and no complaints until my disabled son vanished from the radar by being moved beyond the reach of his family late last summer which my barrister informed was a serious offence under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 Section 16 and the Disability Discrimination laws. The social worker ignored the report of abuse and the Council’s complaint’s department covered it up. You can download Karen Millard’s cover up here:http://www.solihullsocialservices.com/wp-content/uploads/KarenLostEvidence.zip .
Please checkout James’s supporting website that exposes the above in detail : http://www.solihullsocialservices.com
Please don’t cover up the complaint. Please also note that no solicitor has challenged the published allegations against Alison Coppock, Karen Millard, Liz Gillespie and the renegade social worker: Katy Ivco. This failure to challenge my allegations adds significate weight to my case against them.
I don’t believe that leaving the cogent barrister derived allegations published in the public domain to protect my son from further abuse because they were covered up and denied at every level of the complaint’s process is the best way forward. Surely it’s better to just deal with the complaint based on the evidence in an impartial and unbiased manner and pragmatic manner.
I look forward to your response to my complaint.
Yours sincerely
Simon Foden
03/07/15
Dear Ms Alison Coppock
Thank you for your letter of cover up and denial. As you would expect , it resolves nothing. Right from the start you have refused to look at the evidence that you don’t like. Your refusal to recognise the Mental Capacity Act 2005 Section 16 and the Disability Discrimination Laws is pathetic and an affront to Magna Carta.
The facts are that I’ve presented you with email evidence of communication between James’s principal carer and his father and the compelling evidence proves beyond all reasonable doubt that my severely incapacitated, vulnerable and totally defenseless young adult son was illegally pushed under the radar for a period of two months during which time his family were distraught not even knowing if he was alive or dead until he was finally tracked down.
I fully stand by my barrister’s assertion that James’s principal carer committed offences under both the Mental Capacity Act 2005 Section 16 and the Disability Discrimination Laws. As a result I accuse James’s principal carer of abusing my vulnerable son’s incapacity during this time and the evidence I have accrued against her will continue to be published on James’s website until such time as either Social Services, the Local Authority Ombudsman recognize James’s principal carer’s offenses under the above Acts.
If you do not believe that James’s principal carer has committed offences under the above Acts and you do not believe that Katy Ivco aided and abetted her to abuse James’s incapacity by covering up the cogent barrister derived complaint and that yourself: Alison Coppock, Liz Gillespie and Karen Millard have further aided and abetted James’s principal carer to abuse James’s incapacity by covering up James’s father’s complaint against Solihull Adult Social Services because the social worker covered up the abuse then you must put your solicitor in contact with me. My email address is simon@foden.net. I would very much like to communicate with your solicitor and I’ve been trying to get in touch with James’s principal carer’s solicitor since September last year.
Please note that your failure to appoint a solicitor to attempt to prove these allegations against you and your cover up team and Katy Ivco are untrue is my proof that they are, indeed true! It remains James’s family’s position that these allegations are indeed true!. The allegations are published in minute detail, for all to see, on James’s support web site: http://www.solihullsocialservices.com – cover up is futile and does not help to protect my severely incapacitated young adult son the next time his incapacity is abused to deprive him of his family – his loved ones of past and future significant carers and, particularly, his two younger brothers and sister who will, one day be the only blood relatives he has left to ensure his needs are met in his own interests.
Please let me restate this – failure of the person’s named in this email to mount a legal challenge against the above published allegations is James’s family’s proof that the allegations are, indeed, proven and true.
I rest my case until your solicitors make contact with me.
Yours sincerely
Simon FodenDear Mr Nevols I understand. I have a date in July for the response. This case is an absolute tragedy and the abuse my disabled son, his father, brothers and sister have suffered was just so totally unnecessary. All that was necessary to avoid this was for his principal carer to quietly point out to the truth professionals involved involved in my disabled son’s care was that his father and paternal grand parents were his principal day time carers until he was 12 years old and continue to play an important role in his life. Indeed his school bus brought him home from school every day to his father’s house whilst his current principal carer pursued her career objectives until 7 pm each weekday and and James also spent every weekend with his paternal family until his grand parents died three years ago and since then he’s seen us on Skype every other week and every week since the college lawyers switched allegiance from his abusers ((principal carer: Camelia Monica Ryder otherwise known as Monica Ryder, Social worker: Katy Ivco and more recently Solihull Council Complaints team: Alison Coppock, Liz Gillespie and Karen Millard) all on the record and submitted written evidence to prove they have abused James’s incapacity by offending under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 Section 16 (making decisions against his best interests (airbrushing his past and future family out of his defenseless life could not be more against his best interests and such deprivation of his loved ones is illegal and also an offence under the Disability Discrimination laws according to my barrister as a non incapacitated person could simply Skype his loved ones himself))rewrite history and take advantage of his incapacity to airbrush his loved ones out of his defenseless life) to James when they realised he needed their help to Skype his father, brothers and sister who he grew up with and who grew up with him. James’s abusers should not have been so open to be groomed by his abusive principal carer (abusive of his incapacity and his father and brothers who were terrified and heart broke when she groomed the professionals to place James beyond the reach of his loved ones for 2 months before we were able to track him down) even though she has got a Jimmy Savile style Deceitfully Manipulative personality and is very very convincing to people just as Jimmy Savile was – the Social Worker should not have been so easily manipulated and should have made more effort to ascertain the truth before she became a willing participant in my son’s abuse by naively believing everything his principal abuser told her and covering up the abuse – she should not have ignored cogent barrister derived reports of abuse! That is what is most unforgivable in this sad case. The evidence to prove the above points and how the above named people have all libeled James’s father by either implying his father and brothers and sister are unfit and unworthy to contact James at his college or by rewriting history to distort / dilute the above facts and airbrush the people who have loved and supported James all of his life out of his life (offenses under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Disability Discrimination Laws) is all available on James’s website: www.mentalcapacityact2005.com I will wait for the Council’s response – thank you for your reply. Yours sincerely
Simon Foden(James’s father and father of his 3 loving brothers / sister who all love him very much indeed and who he loves too and who his cruel abuser and the professionals she groomed has left no stone unturned to delete us from his mind and his records) 15/06/15
Dear Ms Coppock (Alison)
I quote you directly the whole contents of your email to Claire and Ian on 27/05/15:
“Hello both, this matter is in hand. This man sends frequent emails making allegations about his ex wife, with whom we have no concerns., I have just done a complaint response but he now seems to have disagreed with what Karen had agreed as his complaint. Alison”
I consider it very denigratory that you refer to me- a former significant carer for 13 years of my son James Foden, a severely incapacitated young adult with a mental age of 2 to 4 by referring to me as “THIS MAN” where is the “father”, or “a former principal carer”. Why are you diminishing the role I have, do and always will play?
Alison, as explained previously, if it was your incapacitated son who’s incapacity had been abused to illegally placed beyond the reach of his loved ones you would show a bit more concern wouldn’t you?
Liz Gillespie has done exactly the same when she doctored my complaint to remove this “key” information. Karen Millard once deleted 100% of my complaint from my complaint. I put it to you that this is part of your plot with your co-accused in Solihull Council’s complaints department: Liz Gillespie and Karen Millard and the renegade social worker: Katy Ivco who covered up James’s abuse at the hands of his principal carer: Mrs Camlia Monica Ryder of Solihull otherwise known as Monica Ryder. The principal carer’s offences under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 Section 16 and the Disability Discrimination Laws have been regularly reported to Social Services since September last year and have been 100% ignored hence this complaint. Now the complaints team is covering up the complaints I’ve made by deleting and doctoring key evidence. The principal carer’s offences were highlighted by my barrister in September last year. I’ve never asserted that the principal carer is “convicted” of these offences- only that they occurred and that they are a very very serious causes for concern.
Liz Gillespie deleted “You single handidly 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.” As one of her cover ups in her doctored version of my complaint. It appears that just about all at Solihull Corrupt Social Services and Solihull Council’s corrupt complaint’s team are fully complicit with James’s principal carer and abuse when they , like the abuser, leave no stone unturned to advance the deception that James has no paternal family and diminish the very important role his paternal family have always played in his life. It is almost as if the people named in this email are on the abuser’s payroll!
The facts are that the SENDIST Tribunal have the record of Mr Foden’s victory over Reynald’s Cross School and the Register of Births and Death’s have the proof that I AM the father of James’s brother’s and sister who his abuser has worked so hard to illegally airbrush out of James’s impeded and incapacitated life as she has repeatedly offended under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Disability Discrimination Laws. I have a duty to all of my children to ensure they can Skype each other not only James.
If Ms Gillespie is trying to rewrite history and claim the above facts are a matter of personal opinion that I’m not James’s father and father of his 2 younger brothers and sister then all she has to do is check the register of births and deaths at Solihull Council. How can Ms Gillespie claim that I did not win James SENDIST Tribunal for him single handedly and that I’m not actually the father of James two brothers and Sister? How can she claim this is just “personal opinion” and use this as an excuse to corruptly cover up this crucial information. The SENDIST Tribunal have the record of Mr Foden’s victory over Reynald’s Cross School and the Register of Births and Death’s have the proof that I AM the father of James’s brother’s and sister who his abuser has worked so hard to illegally airbrush out of James’s impeded and incapacitated life as she has repeatedly offended under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Disability Discrimination Laws. I have a duty to all of my children to ensure they can Skype each other not only James.
PLEASE GET REAL EVERYBODY AND FULLY RECOGNISE THE IMPORTSANT ROLE I AND OTHER MEMBERS OF JAMES PATERNAL FAMILY HAVE PLAYED IN JAMES LIFE AND STOP CORRUPTLY AND NEGLIFGENTLY RUTHLESSLY AND RELLENTLESSLY TRYING TO AIRBUSH US OUT OF HIS DEFENCLESS AND INCAPACITATED YOUNG ADULT LIFE!
I quote Alison Coppock again:
“Hello both, this matter is in hand. This man sends frequent emails making allegations about his ex wife, with whom we have no concerns., I have just done a complaint response but he now seems to have disagreed with what Karen had agreed as his complaint. Alison”
I put it to you that your continued lack of concern of the abuse of a severely disabled, totally incapacitated and vulnerable young adult amounts to professional negligence.
I also put it to you that your assertion that I make “frequent emails making allegations about his ex wife” is libellous and misleading – (why are you hiding this fact that the person you refer to is my sons “current principal carer” and abuser who illegally placed this defenceless young man beyond the reach of his loved ones for a period of 2 months with full support of his renegade social worker).
I totally refute your allegation that I make frequent “allegations” about my son’s abuse of his incapacity by his principal carer. I only made one complaint. It is libellous to say frequent complaints.
The point is that the single, one off complaint to Solihull Adult Social Services that my barrister described as a genuine cause for concern was ignored by Solihull Adult Social Services. So what do you expect me to do? Should I consider that, OK, I have 3 other children so, therefore, I can afford to let my incapacitated young adult son’s principal carer, his renegade social worker Katy Ivco. the corrupt complaints handlers at Solihull Council: Alison Coppock, (yourself), Liz Gillespie, and Karen Millard all “rewrite” history in a manner that airbrushes this defenceless young man’s loving father, loving brother Sasha, loving brother Sirus, loving Sister Simone who all grew up with James and love him and who he grew up with and loves out of his totally defenceless and incapacitated life?
The answer is of course no because no “reasonable person” would let that happen and the fact that James’s father’s legitimate concerns have been ignored has forced the concerns to be tendered again and ignored again and tendered again and ignored again and tendered again and ignored again and so on for 10 months. The whole point of the complaint is that the renegade social worker: Katy Ivco is the sole cause of what you call “frequent emailed allegations” because if she wasn’t corrupt and professionally negligent she would, on the first emailed complaint, have had a quiet word in my son’s abuser’s ear to counsel her on her obligations under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 Section 16 and the Disability Discrimination laws and send me a simple reassurance of the same so that I and my 3 children can live in peace without having to constantly look over our shoulder to see when James’s principal carer and abuser will abuse him again. Not only in full view of the corrupt and negligent social worker but with the full support of the corrupt and negligent social worker. No such simple reassuring email has ever been sent to me.
The main part of the complaint is to secure such reassurance.
Therefore you: Alison Coppock, libel me by writing to your superiors that James’s father makes “frequent allegations”. In order not to libel me you must write: “Solihull Adult Social Services frequently ignore James’s loving father’s genuine causes of concern detailed to him by a his barrister – a high legal authority about James principal carer illegally placing a defenceless and incapacitated young adult beyond the reach of his loving family for a period of 2 months during which James’s loving family were terrified, in complete despair and had no idea whether James was alive or dead such was the completeness of James’s abuse by his principal carer and all the time fully supported and covered up by James’s renegade social worker Katy Ivco and now fully supported and covered up by Solihull Council’s corrupt complaints department consisting of: Alison Coppock, Liz Gillespie, and Karen Millard.
Please rewrite your libellous comments to your superiors in the manner above so as not to libel me.
Yours sincerely
Simon Foden
(James’s father and father of his 3 loving brothers / sister who all love him very much indeed and who he loves too and who his cruel abuser and the professionals she groomed has left no stone unturned to delete us from his mind and his records)
12/06/15Karen kept diverting me to the Council’s own email portal that automatically deletes all the emails (evidence) after 30 days. I believe it is more than coincidence that they waited for just over 30 days to tell me they’ve lost the evidence. I believe they thought I had lost my only copy of the evidence and they could cover up the complaint as they’ve relentlessly endeavored to since I complained. However, the Council’s email portal gives users the option to individually save each email i.e. the evidence. Its a very fiddly process but for the love of my incapacitated son I did it and I have now refurnished them with the evidence they deleted. Karen had already confirmed receipt of the evidence and that she’s already passed it to Alison Coppock so in order for them to lose the evidence they must have deleted it (covered it up) on multiple computers. This is a disgrace and no way to run a local authority in a democracy.
12/06/15
Ms Gillespie
Please unzip the attachment (can download here) and click and print the email contents containing the evidence sent to Karen Millard on the 8th May that she has confirmed receipt of and that she has confirmed she has already sent to Alison Coppock that you say she’s lost and I say she’s deleted because how else could they go missing? Please don’t lose this compelling evidence again.
Yours sincerely
Simon Foden
(James’s father and father of his 3 loving brothers / sister who all love him very much indeed and who he loves too and who his cruel abuser and the professionals she groomed has left no stone unturned to delete us from his mind and his records)
12/06/15
Dear Ms Gillespie
I’ve resent the evidence Karen has already given to Alison but both have lost to your statutory complaints email address.
The evidence was sent on 8th May and Karen Millard is on record as saying she has already sent it to Alison Coppock and then a few weeks later you ask me “where is the evidence”? With the best will in the world what do you expect somebody looking from the outside in to think other than shredding machines whitewash and cover up, panic!
The way the complaints team has gone to the ends of the earth to rally round and protect my son’s principal carer and abuser as adjudicated by a barrister just one step below a judge (although the abuser is not convicted it doesn’t mean there is less than sufficient evidence for serious legitimate concern) raises additional questions about who else is involved in the abuse and what appears to have been a plot between multiple professionals involve in my son’s care to do, and who did do, exactly what you did and underplay the importance of my incapacitated son’s paternal family’s role in his life from being his main daytime carers to age 12 (to facilitate his current principal carer to work long full time hours since James was 3 months old) and significant daytime carers until my parents deaths 3 years ago and since then regular Skype contacts of James every fortnight. He loves to see his father, step mum Cherma, Baby Si, Baby Simone and Sasha when we all meet up for a couple of months each year. What beggars belief is how the mountain of evidence to support serious legitimate concern was totally ignored by James’s social worker. It was initially ignored by his new college until its legal team had a Damacean conversion and decided its better to support the victim of the abuse rather than the abuser and they instructed the college to ensure James’s Skype contact with his growing family takes place unhindered every week.
What really beggars belief is the total absence of a Damacean conversion from Social Services and what even more beggars belief is the total absence of a Damacean conversion from your complaints team. You are in a minority by still supporting the social worker who aided and abetted my sons abuser by completely hiding and covering up his abuse. By covering up / diluting the legitimate concerns you are aiding and abetting his abuser. Once I’d explained to the college legal team that to follow their instructions and stop publishing my incapacitated sons abuse – that would aid and abet his abuser and once they realised this they thought it better to instruct their client to help James Skype his loved ones who he grew up with and who grew up with him and not add additional impediments to his already severely impeded life. Once the legal team had done this and I was certain the college was nolonger aiding and abetting James’s abuser it was safe to redact the name of the college and the staff involved from James’s support website. The legal team even told me that the reason we received such a frosty reception at the college was because they cannot discuss what James’s principal carer told them about us. Translated they said James’s abuser libelled James father and brothers and this resulted in a frosty reception by the college of James’s father and brothers.
When will the same penny drop in Solihull Council Complaints handling Team and Solihull adult Social Services? How much publicity will it take for Solihull Social Services and Solihull Council complaints team to see the light on the road to Damascus?
James’s abuser, Solihull Social services, James’s college and , initially the college legal team (before they saw reason) and now Solihull Council Complaints team have made my life hell since late last summer and the sooner we get to the bottom of this and permanently resolve the matter and move on the better.
Why can’t Solihull Adult Social Services be as intelligent as James’s college’s Legal Team and switch to helping the victim and not his abuser?
Why can’t Solihull Council Complaints Handling Team be as intelligent as James’s college’s Legal Team and switch to helping the victim and not his abuser?
What has James’s abuser got over Solihull Adult Social Services Department?
What has James’s abuser got over Solihull Council Complaints Handling Team?
Why can’t she be brought to account in order to permanently resolve the matter and reassure James’s loved ones that she will never abuse his incapacity to deprive him of his love ones ever again so that James’s loved ones don’t have to keep looking over their shoulders to see when she’s going to abuse James and libel his family again?
Yours sincerely
Simon Foden
Dear Ms Gillespie
I’m not complaining about your version of my complaint that is a 100 cut and paste – the problem is that the version you will run with is the “doctored version and that is not acceptable”.
Here is the evidence I sent to Karen Millard on the 8th May.
I expect it to disappear again and if it doesn’t disappear in full I expected you to “doctor it” as you did with my complaint.
I trust you will note how gentle and meek my use of language was when the abuse started late last summer and has only incrementally become more assertive as the gravity of the abuse, the agencies involved in the abuse and the cover up all begin to unfold.
(See evidence pages)
Gillespie, Liz (Business Transformation Directorate – Solihull MBC)
17:13 (2 hours ago)
to me, Statutory
Dear Mr Foden
Further to your email of 10th June, may I refer you to my letter emailed you on 8th June clarifying which of your complaints can be responded to under the statutory complaints process. I am not sure if you scrolled down the document as there are two letters in the document with a blank page in between. You will see that I “cut and pasted” word for word, as instructed by yourself, your complaints into my letter to your of 27th May and in my response of 8th Jun I reattached the letter of 27th May I highlighted those elements / sentences in your complaints that are not investigatable giving reasons for this as they sit outside of the statutory process.
The wording in the remaining complaints from the letter of 27th May have not been changed in any way, other than to remove the sentences that cannot be investigated under this process – the rest of the complaints remain exactly how you worded them.
When we investigate any complaint, the onus is on the complainant to provide as much detail as they can to help us to investigate their complaints. It is inappropriate and not our practice is not seek this detail ourselves from personal postings on websites and this is why we will not be doing so as you instructed me to do from your website. I have not looked at your recent postings in your email of 8th June for this reason and I / my colleagues will not be looking at your website.
I hope this adds some clarification.
Please be assured that your complaints are important and they are being investigated in line with the statutory process.
Regards
Liz Gillespie
Business & Quality Manager
Corporate Performance, Policy and Information
Resources Directorate
Solihull MBC
Tel: 0121 704 8574
lgillespie@solihull.gov
10/06/15
Ms Gillespie has asked for the “evidence”. The complaints team always ask for the evidence and when they receive the evidence they ask for the evidence and when they receive the evidence they ask again for the evidence. So where is the evidence?
The answer is simple – the evidence is in Karen Millard’s trash can – a sub directory of her inbox. I refuse to email it over again however the evidence can easily be accessed from the two links below. If they say there’s no evidence I will raise a new complaint for deleting the evidence. Anybody would think that the complaints team don’t actually want to see any evidence? This is how it looks to somebody who is trying to carry out his legal obligation to report the abuse of a seriously incapacitated and impeded vulnerable young adult.
EVIDENCE:
http://www.solihullsocialservices.com/evidence
EARLY EVIDENCE:
http://www.solihullsocialservices.com/beginning
10/06/15
Ms Gillespie also sneers at what she calls the “nature of the communication”. Well trust me, being on the receiving end of the nature of the abuse and the receiving end of nature of the cover up up is a much worse place to be than the receiving end of the comparatively mild “nature of the communication”.
Solihull Council employs a corrupt Adult Social Services team who have a track record of covering up the abuse of a seriously incapacitated young adult’s incapacity. The principal aider and abbetter of the abuse is Ms Katy Ivco employed by Solihull Adult Social Services Department and she is the incapacitated young adult’s social worker. She is the first member of Solihull Council’s payroll to cover up the abuse of a seriously incapacitated young adult and facilitate his abuse by making it easier for his principal carer to abuse him by taking advantage of his incapacity to illegally place this defenseless young adult beyond the reach of his loved ones who he grew up with and who grew up with him.
Karen Millard is Solihull Council’s corrupt ex Chief Cover up Officer (CCO) who has a track record of completely covering up cogent barrister derived complaints of abuse of vulnerable and then rewriting them in her own words that completely airbrush the complaint out of the complaint!!!
Liz Gillespie is Solihull Council’s new Chief Cover Up Officer (CCO) and has replaced Karen Millard as the corrupt complaint’s handler who rewrites complaints in her own words and shuffles up the words and muddy’s them to downplay the gravity of the issue being complained about. She also considers paternity of James, his brothers and his sister to be “a matter of opinion” and hence not worthy of being included in the complaint – see below.
Alison Coppock is the corrupt complaint handler employed at Solihull Council’s cover up department. She is already on record as saying (to Paraphrase) that abuse of the incapacity of seriously incapacitated young adults is nothing to be concerned about and I put it to her that she had already written her response to my complaint prior to corrupt Karen Millard writing up her fraudulent complaint version of my that she passed off as my complaint because it matched Alison Coppock’s reply.
Since highlighting Alison Coppock’s and Karen Millard’s corruption and complicity in aiding and abetting James’s principal carer and abuser, Liz Gillepspie has drawn up another version of my complaint that actually includes a significant amount of the complaint but she has jumbled up the words to protect James principal carer and abuser who they love so much and who they will put their jobs on the line to protect. This begs the question “what has the principal carer and abuser got over Solihull Council Complaints team to make them do this”?
Could it be that other Solihull Council Departments colluded with James’s principal abuser to get revenge on the naughty complainant because he single handedly won a SENDIST Tribunal for his severely incapacitated young adult son when Reynalds Cross School blamed and punished him for being disabled (treating him and punishing him like a naughty 12 year old when indeed he only had a mental age of 2 and threw terrible twos tantrums just like all 2 year olds do). According to the SENDIST Tribunal this amounted to Disability Discrimination at a school for the “Disabled”.
Could other council departments have goaded James’s principal carer to abuse him to get revenge on his father therefore triggering the complaints handling team to go to the end of the earth to cover up the complaint and legitimate concerns of abuse?? Ordinarily a reasonable person would expect Social Services to go to the ends of the earth to deal with abuse of vulnerable people, get it stopped and not cover it up however something has gone seriously astray here when the name of the game seems to be to cover up the abuse at all costs and try to protect the “nice abuser”.
You can download Liz Gillespie’s Doctored Version of my complaint here.
Here is the actual point three of my complaint:
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.
Here is Liz Gillespie’s corrupt and fraudulent version of point 3 of my complaint that muddy’s the complaint and makes it less easy to understand:
3. During conversation, Katy Ivco referred to your “frustration”, which you feel seriously underestimated the impact the situation had had on you. You were terrified at James’s virtual kidnapping by the Mrs Ryder. Mrs Ryder, until late last summer, kept her promise to replace your mother as the facilitator of James’s Skype contact since April 2012, prior to the shock of making herself incommunicado to activate James’s virtual kidnapping. It was negligent of Katy Ivco to dismiss your feelings of terror as mere frustration.
MRS RYDER’S ONSET OF ABUSING A SERIOUSLY INCAPACITATED YOUNG ADULT BY HARNESSING HIS INCAPACITY TO PLACE HIM HELPLESSLY BEYOND THE REACH OF HIS LOVED ONES BY MAKING HERSELF INCOMMUNICADO OCCURRED AFTER SHE KEPT HER PROMISE TO REPLACE MY MOTHER AS SKYPE FACILITATOR FROM APRIL 2012 UNTIL LATE LAST SUMMER – NOT BEFORE. HENCE THE SUDDEN SHOCK AFTER MANY YEARS OF NO PROBLEMS. Its clear throughout the complaint that there were no issues whatsoever prior to late last summer which explains why there were no complaints until late last summer.
The complaint makes it absolutely clear that there was no problem with the principal carer prior to late last summer so why is Ms Gillespie rewriting the complaint in her own words to suggest that there were issues is covering up the facts that Mrs Ryder is, until late last summer, kept her promise to replace your mother as the facilitator of James’s Skype contact since April 2012. Mrs Ryder did NOT make herself incommunicado until late last summer.
In point 4 of the desired outcomes in my complaint (point 6 in Ms Gilespie’s unauthorised and doctored version of my complaint) it clearly states:
“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.)”
What Ms Gillespie has covered up:
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.
If Ms Gillespie is trying to rewrite history and claim the above facts are a matter of personal opinion that I’m not James’s father and father of his 2 younger brothers and sister then all she has to do is check the register of births and deaths at Solihull Council. How can Ms Gillespie claim that I did not win James SENDIST Tribunal for him single handedly and that I’m not actually the father of James two brothers and Sister? How can she claim this is just “personal opinion” and use this as an excuse to corruptly cover up this crucial information. The SENDIST Tribunal have the record of Mr Foden’s victory over Reynald’s Cross School and the Register of Births and Death’s have the proof that I AM the father of James’s brother’s and sister who his abuser has worked so hard to illegally airbrush out of James’s impeded and incapacitated life as she has repeatedly offended under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Disability Discrimination Laws. I have a duty to all of my children to ensure they can Skype each other not only James.
If Ms Gillespie is not trying to aid and abet James’s principal carer and abuser then why doesn’t she make the above facts absolutely clear?
Ms Liz Gillespies’s Doctored Version:
“As James’s father, a significant participant in the social worker’s client’s day time care to the age of 13, defender of James whenever he’s been in trouble – you are undisputedly a significant player in James’s life who is required to be named on the COP forms for the COP orders to be legally binding.” 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 being left out of the process in a deceitful manner.”
I believe Ms Gillespie is very cruel for her role in trying to Diminish the role James’s father and brothers and sister have played in his life, both past present and their future importance when his father and his mother are nolonger around and all he will have to protect him are his two younger brothers and younger sister. Ms Liz Gillespie, like Ms Alison Coppock and their fellow corrupt member of staff: Ms Karen Millard should all be ashamed of themselves. It is very cruel for these corrupt members of staff to aid and abet James’s principal carer to commit offences under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 Section 16 the Disability Discrimination Laws and illegally airbrush his growing family out of his life. James’s Mental age of circa 2 in many respects means that he needs all the help he can get help him Skype his growing family. He is so impeded that the last thing he needs is the additional impediment of corrupt Council employees: Ms Liz Gillespie, Ms Alison Coppock, Ms Karen Millard and his renegade Social Worker Ms Katy Ivco who was the first Member of Solihull Council staff to cover up James’s abuse at the hands of his principal carer, aiding and abetting his principal carer to commit further acts of abuse against his incapacity to further airbrush his loved ones out of his life. Their relentless efforts to impede the complaint against his abuser is nothing less than aiding and abetting his abuser to abuse his incapacity to airbrush his loved ones out of his life.
By again asking for evidence you admit the Karen Millard has “lost” the evidence. If I email it again she will lose it again so please read the evidence from a very safe place where no members of the complaints team at Solihull Council can doctor it or delete it.
Please confirm you have read the evidence:
EVIDENCE:
http://www.solihullsocialservices.com/evidence
EARLY EVIDENCE:
http://www.solihullsocialservices.com/beginning
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
28/05/15
Dear Alison Coppock
Ms Gillespie has today finally included my actual complaint into my Statutory complaint. The supporting evidence is available here: http://www.solihullsocialservices.com . My son’s website has been revised and broken into categories to make it easier to read. Categories: Home, Complaint, Cover Up, Evidence, College, Early Evidence and Police.
I have been very generous with the evidence and any reference to Katy, or K or SSocial Services refers to my many many ignored cogent barrister derived complaints of the abuse of a seriously incapacitated totally vulnerable young adult’s incapacity.
Your email of yesterday “Hello both, this matter is in hand. This man sends frequent emails making allegations about his ex wife, with whom we have no concerns., I have just done a complaint response but he now seems to have disagreed with what Karen had agreed as his complaint Alison” portrays you as having a pro abuser and anti victim view and this view does not stand up to scrutiny. Even proof beyond all reasonable doubt that the victim has had his incapacity abused by his principal carer does not concern you. This is a monumental admission. You admit that you have not taken any of the 9 months of barrister derived cogent allegations seriously. The barrister has made it clear that the seriously incapacitated young adult (the victim) was illegally placed beyond the reach of his loved ones for a period in excess of 2 months by his principal carer (the abuser). The incapacitated young adult’s father, two brothers and sister are also victims of the abuser.
I’m sure that if it was Alison Coppock’s 19 year old incapacitated son who had been illegally placed beyond the reach of his loved ones for 2 months she would see that Solihull Adult Social Services demonstrate a bit less negligence and a bit more “concern” and I don’t believe Alison Coppock would be very happy if Solihull Social Services took the view that complaining about her son’s abuse amounted to harassment of the “nice abuser” which is what Alison Coppock’s comments to her superiors above amount to!! This is what James’s family have suffered since late last summer.
Alison, either my barrister made up a complete story about the existence of the Mental Capacity Act Section 16 and the Disability Discrimination Laws being on the statute book to protect people like my severely incapacitated young adult son from people like his “nice abuser” who for no reason whatsoever, suddenly and devastatingly took a view that the James’s loved ones who he grew up with and who grew up with him were “suddenly” from late last summer, unfit and unworthy to maintain contact with him so she libelled and defamed James’s family knowing full well that James was too incapacitated and defenceless to do anything about the illegal “airbrushing” of his love ones out of his life. This which begs question why did Solihull not tell “naughty complainant” that these laws DO NOT actually exist and that is why they have no concerns and that is why the nice abuser is not breaking any laws abusing James incapacity simply because the Mental Capacity Act Section 16 and the Disability Discrimination Laws DO NOT actually exist.
Or,
My view, the barrister told the truth, i.e. the Mental Capacity Act Section 16 and the Disability Discrimination Laws do actually exist to protect people like my severely incapacitated young adult son from people like his “nice abuser” who for no reason whatsoever, suddenly and devastatingly took a view that James’s loved ones who he grew up with and who grew up with him were “suddenly” from late last summer, unfit and unworthy to maintain contact with him so she libelled and defamed James’s family knowing full well that James was too incapacitated and defenceless to do anything about the illegal “airbrushing” of his love ones out of his life. This begs question why did Solihull Adult Social Services not tell the “nice abuser” that these laws DO actually exist and that is why they DO have concerns and that is why the nice abuser IS breaking these laws by abusing James incapacity because the Mental Capacity Act Section 16 and the Disability Discrimination Laws DO REALLY exist.
I, a father of 4 including James and his two brothers and sister who I love equally regardless of where they live (James lives in England with his “nice abuser” when he’s not at college, Sasha lives with his mom in Solihull who has full parental control of Sasha and makes no attempts to deprive Sasha of his loved ones and Sirus and Simone live with their mother and father in Thailand and we make no attempts to deprive them of their brother’s Sasha and James). I DO HAVE much better things to do than complain about the “nice abusers” abuse of James’s incapacity.
Alison, Why did you /Solihull Adult Social Services leave me complaining to the deaf ears of Solihull Adult Social Services for 9 months and only tell me this week that Solihull Social Services have no concerns about James’s “nice abusers” ruthless abuse of his incapacity for two months late last summer?
Why did you / Solihull Adult Social Services leave me complaining for 9 months using valuable time that would have been much better spent on my growing family?
Why has it taken 9 months for Solihull adult Social Services to tell me that the problem is James’s hard pressed father complaining about the “nice abuser’s” abuse instead Solihull Adult Social Services quietly confronting the “nice abuser” to counsel her on her obligations to James under the Mental Capacity Act Section 16 and the Disability Discrimination Laws and a discreet communication to James’s father that she had been counselled. This would have reassured James’s father that the “nice abuser” won’t re-offend once James finishes his residential college where his rights under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 Section 16 and the Disability Discrimination Laws are finally being met?
The incapacitated young adult and his father, two brothers and sister are also victims of the cogent barrister derived repeated reports of the incapacitated young adult’s abuse of his incapacity being routinely ignored by Solihull Social Services.
It doesn’t matter if the offences under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 Section 16 and the Disability Discrimination Laws were committed by a principal carer who is an ex wife, the organ grinder, or a member of a royal family because Magna Carta determines that all citizens are equal under the law and as such are subject to their obligations under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Disability Discrimination Laws.
Jame’s college, eventually (after their legal team finally realised that their client had been effectively groomed by the “nice abuser’s” defamatory and libelous remarks she had mis-informed their them with about James’s loved ones, advised their client to stop aiding and abetting the “nice abuser” to make it difficult for an already seriously mentally impeded young adult to Skype his loved ones and go out with them, as he has all of his life, when they come to visit him). The college legal team advised their client that contrary to their libellous defamatory misinformation that the “nice abuser” furnished them with their seriously mentally impeded young adult had, indeed always had a rich and loving relationship with his father brothers and sister who grew up with him and who he grew up with. James has already seen his sister double in size from a new born to a 2 month old as he watched Baby Si grow from a new born to a 2 and a half year old as he watched Sasha grow up from a newborn to a 10 year old all in person and on Skype.
It took until the early months of this year (from September last) for the college, with the help of its legal team, to to have a Damascene conversion and switch emphasis to focus on helping their severely mentally impeded client to Skype and see his loved ones with success every week rather than aid and abet his “nice abuser” to make it as difficult as possible for him and add additional impediments to his already impeded life such as he’s broke his iPad and and his “nice abuser” is not going to replace it, providing him with a laptop that has a flat battery and no camera or setting his Skype to be permanently offline. Yes, all of these impediments were added to my already severely impeded and incapacitated young adult’s life in the months following the “nice abuser’s” placing him beyond the reach of his loved ones as she offended under the above Acts to abuse his incapacity.
Since his college’s Damascene conversion James has had 100% weekly success Skyping his loved ones, Baby Si, Baby Simone and Daddy and this success would not have been achieved without his father’s dedication and commitment to his severely incapacitated and totally vulnerable young adult son against a whole network of easily groomed professionals who had been pre-groomed against them all by the “nice abuser” in the 3 years following James’s former principal carers, his paternal grandmother’s and paternal grandfather’s deaths.
The college’s grooming by the “nice abuser” has wreaked havoc in our lives but after they changed their “view” following their Damascene Conversion James’s father, brothers and sister completely forgive them and consider to college to be just as much a victim of James’s “nice abuser” as James, his father, brothers and sister are.
Now as soon as Solihull Social Services (possibly with the help of their lawyers as with the college) bring about their own Damascene conversion and the desired outcomes in the Statutory Complaint are brought into effect, in full, then Solihull Social Services will be forgiven too and the matter brought to a close.
A sympathetic response to the complaint made on James’s behalf, the desired outcomes in particular and a few apologies will permanently resolve the matter and render James’s website obsolete. An unsympathetic response will mean James’s family have to press on with the exposure of the abuse of his incapacity and how Solihull Social Services covered it up until a sympathetic response is received.
I have a duty to 2 year old Sirus, 2 month old Simone, 10 year old Sasha and 19 year old incapacitated James with a mental age of less than Sirus to ensure that no “nice abusers” that Solihull Social Services like to aid and abet so much ever abuse these vulnerable people (vulnerable through disability or through being minors) ever again by placing them into forced separation against their best interests and all the Acts of Parliament noted above.
Please respond sympathetically to the complaint I’ve put forward on my severely incapacitated young adult son’s behalf.
Yours sincerely
Simon Foden
28/05/15
Ms Gillespie has today included my actual complaint into my Statutory Complaint, but,sadly she has advised some aspects of my complaint may not be investigated. To be updated.
27/05/15
Dear Ms Gillespie
If you don’t like James website: http://www.solihullsocialservices.com then why do you keep covering up James Statutory Complaint below – his website is the only way to get the complaint out. Yesterday you emailed me to say you would sort it out. Today you have gone back on your word. You’ve made James website more important than ever.
Now that you can see that there is nothing in Karen Millard’s dictat below that allows me to correct anything please add my Statutory Complaint into my Statutory Complaint and email me a copy of it as evidence that my Statutory Complaint exists in official form see:
27/05/15
Dear Ms Gillespie
This is Karen’s complaint attached to this email. It does not represent my complaint. It is a complaint drawn up by Karen Millard that she has fraudulently passed off as my complaint. You can see in Karen’s email that she is telling me that this is going to be my complaint even though I replied many times to tell her that this is not my complaint as my complaint deals with Solihull Social Services repeatedly ignoring legitimate and cogent barrister derived complaints of my severely disabled young adult son’s principal carer abuse of a totally defenceless severely vulnerable young adult’s incapacity. I all but begged Karen Millard to communicate as I was desperate to tell her that the complaint she drew up did not represent what I was complaining about but she simply ignored my pleas.
There is nothing in Karen’s email below asking me to approve “Karens” statutory complaint as my own. Karen Millard has by dictat ordered that this will be my complaint even though it is not my complaint and the person who is supposed to hear the complaint passed off as my complaint is unfit and unworthy to hear the complaint because Alison Coppock has made it clear that she does not consider offences under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Disability Discrimination laws as “anything to be concerned about” and instead of telling the principal carer to stop abusing her victim’s incapacity Alison Coppock is telling the father of the victim to stop complaining about the abuse of his son’s incapacity by his principal carer and the public have a right to know about this. That is the whole point of James’s website and when I telephoned Liz Gillespie to see if she would keep her word in yesterday’s email she has decided not to and refused to let me point out as below that Karen Millard has made it clear that she has made the fraudulent complaint ( click here to downlad ) passed off as my complaint by dictat and then Liz threatened me that “I’d better watch it” and ended the call. I presume this is due to James’s website that hides nothing of Solihull Social Services repeatedly ignore legitimate and cogent barrister derived complaints of my severely disabled young adult son’s principal carer abuse of a totally defenceless severely vulnerable young adult’s incapacity and are now actively covering up their cover up.
I have to advise you that covering up the abuse of a serious incapacitated and vulnerable young adult’s incapacity is a serious offence and the public have a right to know what you are doing. The more you cover up the cogent barrister derived complaint the more important this website will be in exposing the abuse of my son’s incapacity and how Solihull Adult Social Services is covering up the abuse and my complaint into the same.
There is nothing in Karen Millard’s dictat below that allows me to correct anything and she has ignored all communication since she sent this:
From: kmillard@solihull.gov.uk
Sent: 22 May 2015 22:34
To: “simon@foden.net” <simon@foden.net>
Subject: Complaint confirmation [secure]
Importance: High
Dear Mr Foden
Thank you for your email.
I explained to you in our recent conversation that your complaints to Solihull Council need to represent the issues that the you wish to raise, fit within the terms of the statutory complaints process and be in relation to services that fall within the remit of Adults Social Care Services.
I have today spent a large portion of my time, again reviewing the emails submitted to me, in order to ensure that the wording of your complaints meet the criteria above, whilst also being clear enough to ensure that the Investigating Manager is able to clearly understand the complaint issues and carry out a comprehensive investigation.
Based on this criteria, and my experience as a Complaints Manager, I have formulated the information given by you into the complaints in the attached letter. I feel that these do fully reflect the issues raised by yourself and will leave the Investigating Manager with no doubt in her mind of the issues you are raising and want investigating.
As confirmed to you previously, she will also have sight of the emails you have sent to me as background to the wording of the complaints, which will further impress upon her the reasons for and theme of your concerns.
I have no doubt that she will now be able to complete a full and thorough investigation and will provide a timely response to you.
I must assume that you are currently not pursuing legal action in relation to these complaint issues. If you are, could you please let me know by return, as we will then be unable to process the issues as statutory complaints as this may prejudice the legal investigation.
Many Thanks
Karen Millard
Customer Relations Manager
Business & Quality Team
Resources Directorate
Solihull Council
Phone: 0121 704 8276
www.solihull.gov.uk
27/05/15
Alison Coppock the person tasked to hear my cogent barrister derived Statutory Complaint of legitimate concerns has today dashed hopes that my complaint will be uncovered up and heard:
To: ‘Simon F; clare; Ian (Adult Social Care – Solihull MBC)
Subject: RE: Fraudulent Statutory Complaint about personal relationships that Ms Millard has passed off as my Statutory Complaint about Solihull Council Social Workers ignoring 9 months of cogent barrister derived abuse complaints against a severely incapacita…
Hello both, this matter is in hand. This man sends frequent emails making allegations about his ex wife, with whom we have no concerns., I have just done a complaint response but he now seems to have disagreed with what Karen had agreed as his complaint. Alison
27/05/15
Reply to Alison’s Complaint Dismissal even before the Statutory Complaint has been officially recognised:
Dear Claire, Ian, Susan, Liz, Alison
James’s Support Website Updated today
http://www.solihullsocialservices.com
This man is the father of a severely incapacitated young adult whose principal carer has committed serious offences under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, Section 16, and the Disability Discrimination laws by illegally depriving him of his liberty to Skype his loved ones (illegal abuse of his incapacity) who he grew up with and who grew up with him in plain sight of Social Services.
The father complained of nothing until late summer last year when the offences were committed and now only makes frequent emails because social Services have repeatedly ignored his cogent barrister derived complaints of abuse. This ignoring of abuse reports has cost the father countless hours of lost work time because Solihull Social Services have ignored 9 months of legitimate concerns.
The father has made the case why Social services should have concerns and should have had a quiet word in the principal carer’s ear to advise her of her obligations to ensure that the severely incapacitated young adult’s rights to Skype his loved ones and see them when they visit him are fully adhered to. This would have allowed the father to live in peace since late last summer instead of leaving him in torment as his cogent barrister derived complaint has being repeatedly ignored over many months and as Alison admitted in this email is still being ignored.
Instead of telling the principal carer to stop abusing her victim’s incapacity Alison Coppock is telling the father of the victim to stop complaining about the abuse of his son’s incapacity by his principal carer and the public have a right to know about this.
By repeatedly and continuingly ignoring the cogent barrister derived complaint and refusing to act on behalf of the seriously incapacitated young adult to advise his principal carer of her obligations under the Acts and continuing to cover up the complaints in plain sight of the public http://www.solihullsocialservices.com Solihull Social Services are just digging a deeper and deeper hole to fall into because the government have a zero tolerance approach to reports of abuse of vulnerable young adults being ignored following Stoke Mandeville and Rotherham.
Alison Coppock’s email below has rendered her unfit to hear this complaint and the public have a right to see her email.
Please check out my son’s support website that clearly explains how the abuse occurred how Solihull Social Services repeatedly ignored it, how Karen Millard fraudulently passed off a lesser Statotory Complaint as my Statutory Complaint in order to cover up the legitimate concerns.
One more time – here is the father’s Statutory complaint that Karen Millard has covered up and replaced with her own lesser complaint that doesn’t even mention how Solihull Social Services repeatedly ignore cogent barrister derived reports of abuse which is the whole point of the complaint!!! Please give me an official Statutory Complaint document that contains my Statutory complaint instead of Karen Millards’s Statutory complaint that she fraudulently passed off as my complaint:
26/05/15
Here is an encouraging email from Karen’s manager that suggests that my Statutory Complaint will be uncovered up:
Dear Mr F
I am Karen Millard’s manager and am responding to acknowledge receipt of your email of 26th May and to re-assure you that your email will be responded to as a matter of urgency. I can confirm that at present we are not investigating any complaints on your behalf as we are awaiting clarity and confirmation from yourself on the specific issues you are complaining about and which you are now indicating are those at the bottom of this email trail.
I hope you will allow me until tomorrow to look through the several emails to get more understanding of your complaints and I / Karen will get back you.
Before we can take forward your complaints we do need absolute clarity on the things that you feel have or have not taken place which you are unhappy with and any specific details such as dates of when these issues occurred will certainly assist.
I will be in touch with you tomorrow.
Regards
Liz Gillespie
Business & Quality Manager
Corporate Performance, Policy and Information
Resources Directorate
Solihull MBC
Tel: 0121 704 8574
lgillespie@solihull.gov
22/05/15
Karen Millard – Solihull Council’s Chief Cover Up Officer (CCO) has today blatantly covered up a cogent barrister derived Statutory complaint of the cover up of abuse and professional negligence by a Solihull Council Social Worker who has aided and abetted a completely vulnerable and severely incapacitated young adult’s principal carer to abuse his incapacity. In making this illegal cover up Karen Millard has today aided and abetted my incapacitated son’s abuser by burying the complaints of abuse therefore making it easier for the abuser to abuse my son’s incapacity to re-offend.
If it is Karen Millard’s personal opinion that she has not aided and abetted my son’s abuser by covering up a cogent barrister derived complaint of his abuse then she must hire a Solicitor. If her solicitor fails to advise her of how she has covered up a cogent barrister derived complaint of abuse and aided and abetted an abuser then it is my legal duty to expose her solicitor for joining Mrs Millard in aiding and abetting my son’s abuser. The abuser of my son’s incapacity: his principal carer has still, after 9 months, refused to hire a solicitor to inform her of her offences under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the disability Discrimination laws. If the abuser hires a solicitor who fails to advise his client of her offences under the above Acts then the abuser’s solicitor will also be exposed for aiding and abetting the abuser of my son’s incapacity. I have a duty to my son to permanently end the abuse of his incapacity by his principal carer so that she doesn’t re-offend further down the line.
Please click here to download Karen Millard’s FRAUDULENT Statutory complaint that she has illegally and fraudulently passed off as my complaint. Ms Millard’s complaint deals with personal relationships that the council can easily fob off by saying that Social Services don’t get involved with personal relationships. However, my Statutory complaint is about how Solihull Social Services repeatedly ignore legitimate and cogent barrister derived complaints of abuse of a totally defenceless severely vulnerable young adult’s incapacity which barely gets mentioned, if at all, in Karen Millard’s fraudulent complaint that she has written in her capacity of Chief Cover Up Officer (CCO) at Solihull Council. In the light of recent abuse cover up scandals at Rotherham and at Stoke Mendeville it is totally unacceptable that such cover ups of cogent barrister derived reports of abuse is still going on at Solihull Council today.
Here is my Statutory Complaint:
22/05/15
Dear Ms Millard
Sadly I still cannot sleep again. I’ve had countless nights like this during the past 9 months so here I am again at the computer in the middle of the night.
The current complaint cannot see the wood for the trees, i.e. the detail misses the whole point of the complaint.
The social worker’s client’s website addresses the main point in the title. The whole point of the complaint is:
Solihull Social Services repeatedly ignored legitimate and cogent barrister derived complaints of a principal carer’s abuse of a totally defenseless severely vulnerable young adult’s incapacity.
There is no doubt that the complaints were ignored and there’s no excuse for this not to be the new point 1 and the rest of the points incremented accordingly.
New point 1 added the rest is as you have already approved.
Please paste in complaint word for word as follows:
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 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