Tin-foiled again. Conspiracy and the Court of Protection

The Court of Protection case of A Local Authority v M and Others has it all.  A huge schedule of potential findings, a real barney as to whether a young man’s parents have been the victims of terrible circumstances and cover ups and abuse or whether they have been abusing their son, Andrew Wakefield (of all people),  homeopathic medicine, a conflict between “mainstream medical thinking” and “mainstream autism thinking”, a witness list of 91 witnesses including a request that a High Court Judge be called to give evidence, and not forgetting a period of time in which the parents wrapped various household electrical objects up in tinfoil.

 

It is a very involved and detailed judgment, and I’ve quoted from it extensively. There’s a lot that I haven’t included  (the judicial analysis of the efforts made to be fair to the parents and take into account that they were acting in person is very thorough and a good working model for other cases in the future, for example)

 

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCOP/2014/33.html

 

This is the background

 

 

• M is a 24-year-old man who has been diagnosed with autism and a learning disability, although, as discussed below, that diagnosis is a matter of controversy. For the first 18 years of his life he lived at home with his parents – his mother, hereafter referred to as E, and father, A – where he was by all accounts generally looked after very well. His parents were and are devoted to him and have devoted much of their lives to his care. He attended local special schools and enjoyed a wide range of activities.
• Until his late teens the family had no contact with the local authority. At that point, however, social services became involved because his parents were looking for a residential placement where he could continue his education. There is no evidence up to that point of any conflict between members of his family and those professionals with whom they came into contact. From that point, however, the picture changed and there has been almost continuous conflict, in particular between M’s mother, E, and the local authority. M’s parents assert that they have been subjected to a malicious campaign aimed at removing M from their care. The local authority asserts that M has been subjected to a regime characterised by excessive control exercised by E over every aspect of M’s life. More seriously, the local authority alleges that E has fabricated accounts of M’s health problems and subjected him to unnecessary assessments and treatments, as well as imposing on him an unnecessarily restrictive diet, with a range of unnecessary supplements. There have been several court proceedings concerning the family, culminating in this case, brought by the local authority in the Court of Protection, seeking orders as to M’s future residence and care. The local authority makes a series of allegations on which it asks the court to make findings. All those allegations are hotly disputed by the parents and this has necessitated a lengthy fact finding hearing. This judgment is delivered at the conclusion of that hearing.

 

 

This is what the Judge said about the central debate  (E being the mother of the 24 year old, and A being the father)

 

70. In the course of the hearing it became clear that E, and perhaps also A, see themselves as the victims of a network of three conspiracies. First, they assert that there has been a systematic conspiracy by the medical profession to conceal the truth about the effects of the MMR vaccine and its links with autism. Secondly, they assert that the employees of this local authority have fabricated a case against them with the aim of removing M from their care for financial reasons, to acquire control of his benefits and limit the amount of money the authority has to spend on him and, furthermore, has drawn into this conspiracy all the other professionals involved in this case – the staff at Y House, X College and N House and some of the doctors – all of whom they say are financially dependent on the renewal of future contracts with the local authority. Thirdly, they assert that the Official Solicitor, far from representing M properly in these proceedings, has used them as an opportunity to pursue an agenda of undermining the prospects of future litigation about the MMR vaccination and to that end has deliberately chosen experts (Dr Carpenter and Professor Williamson) whose views are known and who have been involved in similar cases in the past. They assert that the Official Solicitor and the local authority have attempted to attract political favour by bringing the MMR issue into this litigation.

 

71. I will return to this issue at the end of this judgment at this stage, I merely observe that, if the parents’ assertion about conspiracies is correct, it would amount to gross misfeasance in public office and the biggest scandal in public care and social care in modern times.

 

 

A core part of the parents case was that after their son had his MMR injection, he developed autism, and indeed at one point it was asserted by them that he had been in a persistent vegetative state for six months as a result.  The parents said that where the medical records did not bear this out, this was because they had been tampered with.

 

7. On 12th January 1991, aged just under 18 months, M was given the measles, mumps and rubella (“MMR”) vaccination. There is no record in his GP notes of any adverse reaction. In fact, there is no report of any adverse reaction to the MMR in any record relating to M for the next nine years. From 2000 onwards, however, M’s parents, and in particular his mother, have given increasingly vivid accounts of an extreme reaction to the injection experienced by M. There are descriptions of M screaming after having the injection, followed by six hours of convulsions, screaming and projectile vomiting. It is the parents’ case that the mother told their GP that he had had a bad reaction to the MMR but was told by him that she was an over-anxious mother and must be imagining it. When E called the GP a second time and said she was calling the emergency services, she was told not to do this, but went ahead because M was going in and out of consciousness. The paramedics and the GP had arrived at the same time, at which point M’s temperature was 104. The GP had told the paramedics to leave. Before going, they had told her that this was a case of meningeal encephalitis. The GP had been verbally abusive to E. The above account, given to Dr. Beck, a psychologist instructed as an expert witness in these proceedings, is similar to that given by the mother to a variety of professionals. She also gave a detailed description of M’s reaction to the MMR in the course of her oral evidence. One note in an “auditory processing assessment report” dated 31st October 2002 records E alleging that, following the MMR, M had remained in, “A persistent vegetative state for six months.”

 

8. The parents’ “chronology of health issues” prepared for these proceedings states that between January and June 1991 M was prescribed anti-inflammatories, antibiotics, antihistamines, decongestants and pain relief. There is no medical record of any such prescription, save for the decongestant. It is the parents’ case that the medical records have been tampered with in some way to conceal the true picture. They produced two copies of the medical records which purported to show a gap of some eight months between December 1990 and August 1991. In fact, the original records show that the next consultation after the MMR took place on 26th April 1991. It is the parents’ case that a page of the medical records was missing from the copies with which they had been supplied previously. The GP note of the consultation on 26th April 1991 records that E was concerned that M was a nasal breather and had thick mucous. He was prescribed a decongestant. The note also records that he had been uncooperative at the hearing test that day. According to E, in the summer of 1991 he started to receive homeopathy, reflexology and cranial osteopathy

 

It emerged that these parents had been involved in the Andrew Wakefield research that linked the MMR vaccine with autism (a claim that has not been able to be replicated by any other reputable researcher, and research that it later transpired was funded with a view to bringing litigation, and research that ended up with Andrew Wakefield being struck off.  Notwithstanding that, a number of people still believe him to be correct (I will point out that I am absolutely NOT one of them).  As one of the experts said to the Judge “on some websites he is still talked of as a maligned hero.”

 

As M grew older, his difficulties increased and his mother E was reporting that he had been violent towards her as a result of his many medical conditions.

 

 

21. In his teenage years M started to demonstrate more difficult behaviour. He started having temper tantrums on a scale with which his parents struggled to cope. In her final statement E described this as “an unavoidable personality change” brought about because he was “dominated by testosterone and mercury.” Also in her final statement, E asserted that M became violent towards her at this time and as a result she got quite a “lengthy A&E record” because, in her words, “just about every rib in my body was broken, three with double breaks and my stomach muscle lacerated from my ribcage.” In 2007 M was prescribed lorazepam and then resperidone and was referred to the community mental health team. In August 2007 the parents wrote to that team stating that they had decided that it was not in his best interests for them to continue to be assessed by them. They stated:

 

“The medical profession does little to recognise the chronic medical disease that autism truly is … It is for this reason that we have consistently adopted a biochemical intervention approach and engaged a variety of privately funded specialists, all of whom have made a tremendous difference to the improvement to M’s quality of life and proven that autism is a treatable medical condition. Due to the constant rejection and dismissal of our conviction that we have continually faced, we have chosen only to tap into the NHS for diagnosis of secondary medical complications of a more general nature, local dietary advice and, where specialist expertise was available, in the form of Dr Andrew Wakefield.”

 

 

22 Meanwhile, E was continuing her campaign about the link between the MMR vaccine and autism. On 6th March 2008 she wrote a long letter to the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, the Right Honourable Jack Straw, MP complaining about the failure of the Legal Services Commission to fund the litigation, and making allegations of a conflict of interest against the judge who had dismissed the application against the Commission, asserting that the legal services and the judiciary had betrayed “our” children, warning that as a result they had been placed on “a permanent collision course with each and every public agency” and stating that they would take a number of measures to address their grievances. On 8th May 2008 she received a lengthy reply from the Head of Civil and Family Legal Aid, which was included in the documents produced by E and A in the course of the hearing, stating, inter alia:

 

“Due to the severity of these illnesses and that they were of the wider public interest, the Legal Services Commission initially invested £15 million in this case. Despite this investment, medical research has yet to prove a recognised link between the MMR vaccine and autistic spectrum disorder. Additionally, no link has been proved by any other medical body. There remains no acceptance within the worldwide medical authorities that MMR causes the symptoms seen in these children. Therefore, the litigation was very likely to fail. It was for this reason that the Legal Services Commission decided that it would not be correct to spend a further £10 million of public money funding a trial that is very unlikely to succeed, and withdrew funding for this case.”

The author of the letter added that a confidentiality clause surrounding the judicial review prevented him disclosing the exact reasons why funding had been withdrawn, but pointed out that the solicitors acting for the claimants were aware of the reasons and were at liberty to disclose them to the applicants.

 

The parents sought help from the Local Authority in caring for M

 

 

• By this point M’s parents, who had hitherto managed without any assistance from social services, had contacted the local authority as plans needed to be made for M’s future when he left school. E and A identified a college in East Anglia which they thought would be the right option for M. Difficulties arose, however, as to the funding of this placement and M’s parents issued proceedings against the local authority, claiming that it was unreasonably refusing to fund the package of education and social care. The local authority’s case before me is that the placement could not proceed because the Learning and Skills Council was unable to fund the educational component of the placement because the establishment had not been approved by OFSTED and the local authority was unable to pay for the residential component of the placement because it had not been approved by the Care Quality Commission. In July 2008, M left school and, with the local authority’s support, attended a life skills development course locally for a year while the dispute between the local authority and his parents was resolved. The local authority has estimated that the package of care and support offered to M during this year cost the authority around £55,000. Negotiations between the local authority, the Learning and Skills Council and his parents continued and ultimately his parents identified an alternative college in the south of England – hereafter known as X College – which the Learning and Skills Council agreed to fund.
• M started attending X College in September 2009. For the first few weeks he was driven to the college every day. In October he moved into a residential unit nearby with the assistance of the local authority – hereafter referred to as Y House. At first this placement went well but problems soon arose. E made a series of complaints about the standard of care given to M, including that he suffered repeated episodes of ringworm, other fungal infections, conjunctivitis and ear infections, including a burst eardrum. As a result, E spent three weeks staying in a nearby hotel to provide support for M. She was also concerned that certain assurances given about Y House prior to M’s arrival had not been fulfilled. In particular, having been told that the House, which was a new project, was intended for young people of M’s age, she was alarmed to find that older people with more extensive disabilities were accommodated there. Relations between E and the staff at Y House deteriorated. The staff expressed concern about the level of control over M exercised by his mother. She provided a strict dietary programme for M to be followed by the staff, regular health bulletins on his return to the unit after weekends at home and a list of all the treatments and supplements to be given to him. By this point, according to a list prepared by E and A, the range of biomedical interventions being supplied to M included a probiotic, six vitamin supplements, four mineral supplements, five trace elements, fatty acids, amino acids, enzymes and a range of homeopathic remedies. E and A said that this combination had been arrived at through the advice of the gastroenterology department of the Royal Free Hospital, the Autism Research Unit at Sunderland University, the Autism Treatment Trust in Scotland and a privately funded naturopath. They said that the reason for M taking this combination of supplements was “to address the autistic enterocolitis he suffers from.”

 

There was then some other litigation with E and A judicially reviewing the Learning and Skills Council about funding of a placement for M, that litigation being settled by the Learning and Skills Council

 

On 12th March 2010, E made an application to the Court of Protection to be appointed as M’s deputy (i.e this Court of Protection litigation was initiated by her).

 

It would be fair to say that the family and the Local Authority were not getting on well

 

 

28. In the summer of 2010, E and A made a formal complaint against the local authority comprising of a range of individual complaints about the placement, care provision and care management. According to E and A, the complaints made on this occasion amounted to a total of 236 individual complaints. At the hearing before me the local authority asserted that the total number of complaints made was many times more than those made in any other case. Some of the complaints were directed at MS and as a result she was withdrawn from the case. At the end of June, M’s case was transferred to a different locality team within the local authority and allocated to a team manager – JR – and a senior practitioner – LG. Those senior social workers have remained responsible for M’s case to the present day. The complaints were investigated by an independent practitioner. Nearly all of these complaints were not upheld. In his conclusion the investigator observed, inter alia:

 

“First and foremost, although a few of the complaints have been upheld, they arise from a genuine desire by E and A to do the very best they can for M and obtain the very best services that they can … They feel that their mission has meant having to fight every inch of the way against health and legal services and more recently social care services. This has no doubt influenced the extent to which they are able to work in partnership with the statutory agencies. As E and A have such clear ideas about all aspects of M’s life and believe that the conclusions they have reached about him are correct, it is understandable that they have difficulty in accepting the views of others where those differ from their own. In the current circumstances E and A are required to work alongside professionals in social care, medical services and residential care services. Those professionals will also have M’s best interests at heart, but may hold differing views about what is in his best interests. Where the professionals have wished to pursue their own views and approaches, they have found that they have had to be very clear and assertive. This has brought about an even more assertive approach in response and commonly this has led to communications which border on the unacceptable. Many of the complaints appear to arise from such circumstances.”

 

29. E and A did not accept the outcome of this investigation and asserted, inter alia, that the investigator had not been truly independent of the local authority and had not investigated the complaint properly.

 

There’s then a LONG history of medical issues, problems and investigations over the next three years, and I did promise that I would get to the tinfoil bit.

 

On 3rd March, KH informed the local authority that E had told him that she believed that M was suffering from an adverse effect to electromagnetic energies and she was wrapping electronic items in his bedroom in tin foil to protect him. On 12th March, according to KH, E told him that they had taken M to accident and emergency two days earlier because he was in an immense amount of pain. He had been diagnosed with what appeared to be brain seizures. On 19th March, according to KH, E said that M was now on three types of pain relief – paracetamol, ibupfofen and codeine – and this seemed to help. She thought he was suffering from either migraine clusters or brain seizures. On 4th April, JR and LG made an unannounced visit to the home. What happened on this visit is disputed. The social workers’ evidence is that they spoke to A but that E refused to come down to see them as she was busy upstairs and dealing with M. A told them he would ensure that M came to no harm. The social workers did not see M on this visit.

Around this time M developed a small wound on his leg. His mother, having read two articles in the newspapers, came to the conclusion that he was suffering from Lyme disease. She consulted her GP, Dr W, who tried to reassure her that this was unlikely to be the case, but at her insistence tests were carried out in this country and subsequently at a clinic in Germany. This analysis revealed that M had one chemical marker consistent with Lyme disease. Dr W continued to reassure the mother, on the basis of his own experience of Lyme disease, that the overall clinical picture did not fit this diagnosis

It would appear to be at around this time that professionals moved from seeing E and A as very anxious carers of a young man with very serious health needs to beginning to look at whether M had such health needs or whether there was an element of factitious illness syndrome being played out here.

 

 

• On 18th July 2013 the local authority started these proceedings in the Court of Protection seeking orders (1) permitting the authority to remove M from his parents’ home and either return him to Z House or place him in independent or supported living; (2) that he should not take supplements or medication unless prescribed by a doctor or considered necessary by his carers; (3) that professionals and care staff were not required to follow E’s instructions regarding M’s care and (4) removing E as his deputy. In the application the authority identified concerns about M being isolated from professionals, his apparent distress at his mother’s behaviour, the fact that he had been removed from Z House without agreement, the degree of control exercised by E over his life, the difficulties in E’s relationship with professionals and the allegation that had been made that E “may have Munchausen by proxy.”
• On 23rd July, M attended the graduation ceremony at X College. On 25th July, District Judge Mort gave directions, including the reappointment of the Official Solicitor as litigation friend. E subsequently applied for the summary dismissal of the local authority’s applications, contending, inter alia, in a lengthy exposition of her case, that it was “a shameful and reckless attempt [at] retribution by persecution of us as a family” and made with the purpose of “sabotaging” the costs application outstanding from the previous court proceedings, and to detract from the complaints and other litigation which she and A had brought against the authority. Attached to E’s application for summary dismissal was a further document described as an “overview of M’s health”, listing the background of dental attention, including a reference to the x-ray of July 2012, which “indicated the swelling above UL6, advised to be sinuses”, a list of twenty illnesses and symptoms that M was said to have suffered since October 2012 and a further list of thirty-one illnesses, symptoms and treatments that he was said to have suffered, exhibited or taken in the past four months, including: “on movement body temperature drops/hands and feet freeze and become rigid”, “swelling of joints, hands and feet”, “projectile vomiting”, “excruciating pain and in waves, intensity and frequency likened to cluster headaches/migraines”, “uncontrollable temperatures”, “stabbing pain in the groin, “difficulty in urinating”, “uncontrollable sneezing”, “unable to have any volume/sounds on”, “simplest of movement causes exhaustion”, “on constant pain relief”, “now on concentrated oxygen for up to six hours a day”, “biomedical natural supplements have become life supporting.”. It was said that in the previous four months M had seen

 

“our GP on a weekly basis, an ENT specialist, a neuro-autonomic diagnostic specialist, a neuro-psychologist, a neuro-physicist, his neuropsychiatrist and his biomedical nutritionist.”

It was further said that M

“underwent an MRI brain scan and an EEG on the 2nd of May 2013, referred by neuro-physicist, and as a result of possible brain stem dysfunction, suspected internal destruction of his nerve endings and heightened/over-exaggerated reflex response and his nervous system was so obviously trapped in flight mode.”

It was said that his immune system had been “chronically compromised” as a result of his infection with bacteria associated with Lyme disease. E added that:

“blood is not interrogated further in this country, unlike the European laboratory in Germany. In this country there is a reliance upon a GP to clinically diagnose and treat this most debilitating disease but that does not allow for the fact that GPs prefer to avoid doing so, for reasons we are now endeavouring to determine. Meanwhile, our son continues to deteriorate at an alarming rate.”

It was said that E was having to massage his hands and feet for up to six hours a day. E added:

“the loss of this circulation and sensation has since been diagnosed as rheumatoid arthritis induced by his immune system turning in on itself and known as auto-immune dysfunction.”

Amongst other claims made, E also asserted that it had been suggested that M could be suffering from an electro-sensitivity disorder and as a result they had terminated all wireless transmissions in the house. E set out her case in detail as to what she had been told about the problems in M’s mouth, referring to a complete breakdown of all life support and systems, a black shadow on which the left sinus was sitting and an intolerable level of pain.

 

Andrew Wakefield crops up again here, it being said that when M had a tooth removed it was kept by mother in the freezer to send to him for analysis (ironically, one of the dental establishments involved here was the Tooth Fairy Surgery)

 

 

• On 5th August 2013, M underwent surgery under general anaesthetic in which the two teeth were removed. The hospital notes for this admission reveal that, in summarising M’s medical history, E said that he had “tested positive for Lyme disease.” The two teeth were subsequently given to E, who stored them in her home freezer with a view, it is said, to send them for testing in America by Mr (formerly Dr) Wakefield. In a further email to Ms Haywood dated 11th August, E spoke graphically of the implications for M of the delay in treating the abscesses:

 

“This would not only explain the excruciating pain that [M] has experienced, and possibly on/off since October 2011 … that would have been horrendous for [M] to have had to cope with over the last year and just unbearable without intravenous pain relief. They also easily explained the neurological and blood poisoning problems that M has been suffering. Left undetected they can be fatal. Hence, they have said they have caught [M] in time but not soon enough to stop the bacteria produced by these abscesses from eating away at the body and affecting all life supporting systems. Apparently, the soft facial tissue is attacked first, along with the soft tissue of the heart and the lungs while they swell the brain and cause abscesses on it. While all this going on, apparently at the same time they eat the bone structure of the body – the knuckles and fingers and toes, the wrists, ankles, elbows, knees, shoulders and hips – as they make their way up the bones. So, all of this was well underway with [M].”

Miss Haywood was continuing to prescribe various protocols for M, and on 6th September she prescribed a general nutritional supplements protocol and a “Lyme disease protocol”.

 

[Let’s not forget here that the only medical professional who had given a view on Lyme disease was saying that M did not have Lyme disease]

 

On 3rd March 2014, the expert report had come in, and formed the view that this was a factitious illness case and M was removed into a residential home pending investigation and the Court determination of the case.

 

 

• On 3^rd March 2014, Dr Beck delivered her report to the solicitor representing the Official Solicitor, Miss Nicola Mackintosh. Dr Beck concluded that E suffers from factitious disorder imposed on others and that M is the victim of that disorder. She added that she could not:

 

” … rule out the possibility that E may pose a risk of harm to M in order to prevent her loss of control over him as a source for attention for herself.”

These conclusions led the Official Solicitor and the local authority to be concerned, first, that M might be at risk of harm remaining in E’s care and, secondly, and immediately, that he might be at heightened risk of harm when the report of Dr Beck was disclosed to the mother. The Official Solicitor made an application to me for directions in relation to the disclosure of the report to E and A. By the time the application came on for a hearing the local authority had applied for the immediate removal of M from the care of E and A and this was supported by the Official Solicitor. At the conclusion of that hearing on 6th March, I authorised M’s removal the following day, into an emergency placement at an establishment – hereafter referred to as “N House” – run by an organisation – hereafter referred to as “C Limited” – some sixty miles from the family home and in a different County, and ordered that he should reside there until further order.

 

Factitious illness cases (or what used to be called Munchhausen Syndrome By Proxy) are difficult cases. They are particularly difficult when the alleged victim does also have genuine medical conditions. They are difficult to run in care proceedings, when everyone has the benefit of free legal advice and representation. In the Court of Protection, these parents were on their own. They were representing themselves. An added complication was that part of the parents case was that they wanted to run a case that the MMR vaccine causes childhood autism  (bear in mind that when the Legal Services Commission as they then were, were envisaging funding the litigation on that issue alone, they’d set aside TEN MILLION POUNDS as a reasonable sum to thrash that issue out)

 

 

• Asked to prepare a witness schedule, E filed a document which appeared to indicate that she wished to call, or at least rely on the evidence of, 91 witnesses at the hearing, including Keith J, who had heard part of the litigation involving MMR, and their MP, the Right Honourable Mr Michael Fallon, and for 48 witnesses to be required to attend for cross-examination.

 

• One lesson of this case is that, if parties such as E and A are to be unrepresented in hearings of this kind, be it in the Court of Protection or in the Family Court, the hearings will often take very considerably longer than if they were represented. Denying legal aid in such cases is, thus, a false economy.
• In total, the court papers filled some 33 lever arch files (court documents and file records) plus two further lever arch files of documents produced by E and A during the hearing. No doubt if the parents had been represented, it might have been possible to reduce this material into a core bundle, as I did myself at the conclusion of the hearing. Even those 35 files may not represent the totality of the disclosable documents that might have been produced. For example, no health visitor records were produced for the period of M’s early years. At a very late stage E alluded to the possibility that she may have copies of these records somewhere in the loft at her home. Furthermore, and despite my explaining the rules about disclosure on more than one occasion, I am not entirely satisfied that E and A have complied with their obligation to disclose all relevant documents, including those that do not support their case. At one point E’s medical records were produced and, when E objected to their disclosure on grounds of confidentiality, I conducted a public interest immunity examination to determine which pages of the records were relevant. In the event, I concluded that only 16 pages fell into that category, but E insisted on challenging the disclosure of some of those pages on the grounds that they would assist the other parties. This illustrates another consequence of parties appearing without representation in these cases, namely that the courts may have to devise new rules as to disclosure.
• The list of 139 witnesses who the parents seemed to suggest should or might have to give evidence was, fortunately, considerably reduced. Even so, 32 witnesses gave oral evidence at the hearing: four members of the local authority social services team (LG, the current social worker, JR, the team manager, MS, the former case worker and MW, the head of adult services); MH, the chief executive of X College; staff involved with the running of Y House (CS, the first manager, PL, his successor, and RR, the regional operations manager of the agency); staff involved in running Z House (CH, the manager, and KH); staff involved in running N House (AA, the owner of the agency that runs that home, and AR, a care worker at that property); three friends of E and A with experience of caring for autistic people, one of whom is herself on the autistic spectrum; JB, a carer employed by E and A when M was at home; the family GP, Dr W; the family dentist, DC, and the locum who worked at the surgery, Ms Malik; practitioners who had been consulted by E in connection with M’s treatment (Shelley Birkett-Eyles, occupational therapist, Dr Julu and Juliet Haywood, the nutritional therapist); expert witnesses, namely Dr Beck, Mr McKinstrie, Dr Carpenter, Professor Williamson, Dr Adshead, Dr Aitkin and Mr Shattock, all instructed by E and A; M’s sister, S, and, finally, his parents, E and A themselves.

 

The parents stated that no fewer than 13 of those professionals had lied to the Court and that the allegations of factitious illness had been cooked up by professionals to pay them back for the successful judicial review litigation about funding a placement for M at college, and that the case had been fabricated for financial reasons rather than any genuine concern by professionals that M was at risk.

 

An interesting issue was in relation to three witnesses called by the family whose expertise was in alternative medical treatments. They had been providing assessments and treatment for M, who was an adult, with no understanding of whether he was consenting or had capacity to consent.

 

• he last group of witnesses about whom I wish to make specific mention before turning to the evidence are the three alternative medical practitioners called by E and A: Shelley Birkett-Eyles, Dr Julu and Ms Haywood. Mrs Birkett-Eyles is an occupational therapist and Director of Hemispheres Movement for Learning Limited, a private occupational therapy practice specialising in the assessment and treatment of children and young adults with learning and developmental difficulties. She has seen M on several occasions since 2010 and, amongst other things, ran a training day at X College on the topic of sensory processing. Dr Peter Julu describes himself as a specialist autonomic neurophysiologist and consultant physician. Juliet Haywood is a nutritional therapist who has been advising E on M’s diet for the past four years.
• My impression of Mrs Birkett-Eyles was that she was a responsible practitioner working within the proper confines of her particular field, although, as will be clear later, the reliability of her opinion as to treatments given to M was challenged by Dr Carpenter. I was more concerned about the evidence given by Dr Julu and Ms Haywood.
• Dr Julu told the court in oral evidence that his field of interest is not yet part of mainstream medical training in England and that he is the only autonomic neurophysiologist in Europe. I was not satisfied from his evidence that his purported specialism is a legitimate field of medicine and, again, the reliability of his assessments and treatment recommendations for M were challenged by Dr Carpenter. In her supplemental closing submissions filed this morning, E said that the lack of knowledge amongst those challenging Dr Julu’s evidence is “startling, as it is easily accessible on the internet.”
• Ms Haywood, whose professional qualification is a diploma from the College of National Nutrition, has played a major role in advising E in recent years. The papers contain a number of emails passing between E and Ms Haywood and it is clear from reading them that there are others which have not been disclosed. I am satisfied that in the course of her involvement with the family Ms Haywood has given advice that went well beyond her expertise. One glaring example was Lyme disease when, on her advice, given after seeing a photograph of a mark on M’s leg, E sent urine samples abroad for further testing. Subsequently, Ms Haywood confidently expressed an opinion on the interpretation of the results of those tests. She has no chemistry or other qualification that equips her to do so. I was also concerned that Ms Haywood had prescribed the dietary protocol for M without seeing him and with no independent knowledge of his medical history, content to rely solely on what she was told by E; for example, that M had a chronic gut disorder. In contrast to Mr Shattock’s Sunderland Protocol, which recommends the systematic testing of diets and supplements individually, Ms Haywood was content to prescribe a dietary programme without testing each individual component separately. She did not agree with the NICE guidelines as to the impact of diet on autism. She had forthright views on many things, saying, for example, at one point that she did not like Cancer Research UK. I was left with a profound anxiety about Ms Haywood’s influence on E and her role in the treatment that M has received.

 

 

None of the three witnesses had received any training on the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and it was clear from their evidence that none of them had given proper consideration to the question whether M had capacity to consent to their assessments or the treatment they were prescribing. The family GP, Dr W, also admitted in his oral evidence that he only made a detailed study of the Act and the Code of Practice when he was told that he would be giving evidence in this case, and he identified a number of learning points about the Mental Capacity Act arising out of his involvement in these proceedings. Mr Bagchi reminded me in his closing submissions of the concerns expressed in the House of Lords’ Select Committee on the Mental Capacity Act 2005 Post-Legislative Scrutiny Report on the implementation of the Act, dated 30th March 2014, about the general lack of awareness by the general public and professionals of the principles and workings of the legislation. This case has highlighted the urgent need for all health professionals, including those practising in alternative and complimentary medicine, to familiarise themselves with the Act so that they can apply its principles and procedures when they treat a person who lacks capacity, as most of them will at some point.

 

[I had a quick look on the internet, as recommended by E, into autonomic neurophysiology, and found this paper submitted by Dr Julu himself – in which to my mind he is asserting that there is scientific proof for the efficacy of homeopathy. So he is either an eternal optimist, someone who is not necessarily as scientifically rigorous as one might hope*,  or he is about to win a Nobel prize. I could not possibly comment as to which is more likely  http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/homeopathy/ucm2002.html ]

In summarising the capacity issues in the case, the Judge begins with “M’s diagnosis is a matter of some controversy”  – which is a masterpiece of understatement.  The Judge boils it down to M having had childhood autism.

Reaction to the MMR

 

• The issue of M’s reaction to the MMR vaccination and whether it was the cause of his autism lies at the heart of this case. E and A insist that M had a devastating reaction to the MMR, that his autistic traits date from that time and that this provides clear evidence in support for the Wakefield theory. On the other hand, it is alleged by the Official Solicitor, in particular, but also supported by the local authority, that E and A have fabricated the account of M’s reaction to the vaccine and thereby falsely sought to establish a link between the vaccine and his autism.
• As I stated more than once during the hearing, this case is not an inquiry into whether there is a link between the MMR vaccine and autism. The relevance of this issue is whether the account given by E, in particular, of M’s reaction to the MMR, is true. Nonetheless, it is necessary to outline briefly the expert evidence that I have received about the possibilities of a link.
• I have already described the history of the controversy in the summary above. The prevailing medical view is as set out information published by the World Health Organisation – actually produced by E in the hearing – which states that:

 

“The overall evidence clearly indicates no association of MMR vaccine with either inflammatory bowel disease or with developmental delays, including autism.”

This accords with the opinion given by Dr Carpenter. Nevertheless, there is a substantial body of opinion to the contrary, including parents of autistic children and some alternative medical practitioners.

 

• Dr Carpenter reached the conclusion in his report that the diagnosis of M’s autism as having been induced by the MMR vaccine is inconsistent with the independent contemporary evidence and, therefore, not viable. He notes that M’s parents did not link his apparent regression to the MMR injection until after the publication of Dr Wakefield’s paper in 1998. Dr Carpenter has carried out, as requested, a full analysis of the medical records and found that the first account of M deteriorating immediately after the MMR vaccination was not given until 2001. E’s subsequent accounts of M’s reaction to the vaccination – of a child developing normally prior to the vaccination and thereupon having seizures, screaming fits and declining into a vegetative state for six months – is incompatible with the other records. There is no mention of adverse effects or any reference to a bad MMR reaction in the GP records. Dr Carpenter notes that a few months after the MMR, the GP records show M being described as hyperactive, which Dr Carpenter points out is inconsistent with the account of his being in a vegetative state. When a change of GP took place a few months later, there was no note of any recent adverse event being recounted to the new doctor. If M had been in a severely regressed state at this time, Dr Carpenter would have expected this to have been mentioned to the new GP. Furthermore, 21 months after the MMR, when giving a detailed account of his development to Dr Baird, no mention was made by the parents of any deleterious reaction to the MMR. On the contrary, their account concentrated on an earlier deterioration after an illness at age 10 months – seven months before the MMR was administered. In cross-examination by E, Dr Carpenter said that any adverse reaction to the MMR vaccination which had caused a regression in M’s development would have been recorded in his 24 month developmental check and it was not. What was recorded was not regression, but a lack of progress.
• After the allegation of an adverse reaction to MMR was eventually recorded in 2001, it became more dramatic in subsequent accounts. Thus, in 2001 the description was: “Distressed after injection. Had fever. Eyes glazed, dilated and fixed.” E’s account became more florid over time, with references to screaming, jolting, spasming and a persistent vegetative state. In her final statement she said that: “M died within six hours of the MMR.” In the witness box she gave a full account of the events on the day on which the MMR was administered and M’s reaction to it. E acknowledges in her final statement that she uses certain words and phrases in her own particular way. For example, for her the phrase “vegetative state” means “slipping in and out of consciousness, not responding and appearing lifeless.” And her use of the word “died” to describe what happened to M means “stopped breathing and lost consciousness”. For E, her use of these words and phrases is as valid as the way in which they are used by medical professionals.
• For some time E has alleged that part of M’s medical record is missing. The inference that she invited the court to draw was that pages had been deliberately removed to conceal contemporaneous records of his reaction to the MMR. It is now clear that no part of the records have been removed. One page of the records was missing and copies produced by E and A, but the original record was intact. I am not going to speculate on the reason why the copies produced by E and A are incomplete.
• If M had an experienced an extreme reaction to the vaccine, as now alleged, it is inconceivable that E and A would not have sought medical advice and thereafter told all doctors and other medical practitioners about what had happened. As I put it to E in the course of the hearing, there are only three possible explanations for what has happened. The first is that E did give the account to Dr Baird and all the other practitioners at every appointment, but each of them has negligently failed to record it. The second is that she gave an account but all the practitioners have chosen not to include it in their records. That is what E maintains has happened, alleging that the whole of the medical profession is deliberately concealing the truth about the MMR vaccine. The third is that E has fabricated, or at least grossly exaggerated, her account.
• Mass negligence can obviously be discounted. In my judgment, it is also completely fanciful that the whole of the medical establishment had decided to act deceitfully in the way alleged by E. I therefore conclude that the account given by E as to M’s reaction to the MMR is fabricated.
• For the purpose of this case, it is unnecessary to make any finding as to why it has been fabricated. It is unnecessary to explore whether E truly believes that M reacted in the way she now alleges. It is notable that A also, apparently, adheres to the same account, although he is noticeably more reticent in his evidence about it. The key point for the purposes of this case is that E has fabricated her account of a crucial aspect of M’s medical history and thereafter relied on this false account to direct the course of his future treatment.

 

Lyme disease

 

• The clear evidence of Dr W, the family GP, was that M did not have Lyme disease. Although he was not instructed as an expert witness, it is significant that Dr W’s clinical practice has included experience in rural areas where he has come across cases of this condition, which is caused by a tick bite. He advised that it is a diagnosis based on biochemical testing in the context of the overall clinical picture. I therefore conclude that he has the expertise to give a definitive opinion as to whether M was suffering from it, and I accept his evidence that M was not.
• E, on the other hand, did not accept Dr W’s view and persisted in obsessively pursuing her theory that M was suffering from this disease. Her unshakeable view was based initially on two newspaper reports of women who were diagnosed with the disease that had gone undetected for some time. She thought the mark on M’s leg had been caused by just such a bite. Her fears were stoked by comments from Ms Haywood, speaking about a matter in which she was completely unqualified, who warned that testing carried out by British laboratories was inadequate. At her suggestion, E therefore insisted that samples be sent abroad. The results suggested that one marker consistent with, though not diagnostic of, Lyme disease was present in one sample. On this basis E maintained that M had indeed had that condition and continued to include it in summaries of his health history. For example, when he was admitted to hospital in August 2013 for the dental extraction, E said that he “had tested positive for Lyme disease”.
• I accept Dr W’s evidence. M did not have Lyme disease. This is yet another example of E giving a false account of M’s medical history. In this regard she was supported by Ms Haywood, who showed no doubt in the witness box about her ability to express an opinion about Lyme disease without having any appropriate qualifications.

 

 

 

Tooth abscess/sinus problems

 

• On 21st June 2012, E took M to the family dentist’s surgery suffering from pain. The regular dentist, DC, was not at work, so M was examined by a locum, Ms Malik, who works regularly at the surgery. Ms Malik had not originally been scheduled to give evidence at the hearing before me but was located at the last minute and duly called by the Official Solicitor.
• Ms Malik’s computerised record of the examination stated that M had complained of pain and that E had been informed by his support worker that he had not been eating well on the previous day. On examination she found slight tenderness in tooth upper left 6. An x-ray was taken and revealed that he had an area of periapical infection. Ms Malik was shown the x-rays in the witness box and confirmed the diagnosis. The records indicate that she told E that M needed to be assessed urgently for extraction or root canal treatment under general anaesthetic and that E said that she would like to monitor it for now as M was unable to have a local anaesthetic. The records further indicate that Ms Malik offered antibiotics for M, but E declined. Ms Malik said that she had told E to make a further appointment to see DC when he returned to the surgery.
• It is E’s case that Ms Malik has given a false account of this examination. E says there was no mention of any periapical infection or abscess, but instead Ms Malik had told her that there was a problem with M’s sinuses. She denies that there was any talk of root canal treatment or extraction or that antibiotics were offered. E put this version to Ms Malik in oral evidence, who emphatically stood by her evidence: she had not mentioned sinuses.
• Two days later after M was examined by Ms Malik, E called an out of hours doctor about M because he had pain and facial puffiness. When M was examined by the doctor, E reported that he had been seen by a dentist who, according to the doctor’s record, said he had sinusitis. In court, E denied using the word “sinusitis” but said that she had told the doctor that the dentist had said there was a problem with his sinuses. According to the doctor’s note, on examination the doctor did not detect any definite tenderness in the sinuses, but after E said that M would not definitely say if there was tenderness, the doctor recorded the diagnosis as “likely sinusitis” and prescribed antibiotics. When M returned to X College and Z House on the Monday after Ms Malik’s examination, a diagram was provided (now at page N202 in the bundles) showing the sinuses and recording that the x-rays taken on 21st June had indicated no tooth or gum infection or decay, no nerve irritation, but swelling of the sinuses and pressure from a ruptured wisdom tooth. This was completely at odds with what Ms Malik said she had advised E. On 27th July 2012, M was seen by a different dentist at a surgery close to Z House. On examination nothing untoward was detected. It seems likely, as suggested in evidence by Ms Malik, that the antibiotics prescribed by the out of hours doctor on 23rd June temporarily alleviated the symptoms. E requested that no radiographs be taken at the examination on 27th July. In oral evidence, Ms Malik told the court that a clinician would need to see x-rays to diagnose the presence of abscesses.
• In due course, on 23rd May 2013 – some 11 months after Ms Malik’s examination – E took M to a different surgery not far from the family home called The Tooth Fairy Holistic Centre, where x-rays confirmed the presence of periapical areas in upper left 6 and 7, indicating the presence of abscesses – confirmed by a surgeon to whom M was then referred and who then subsequently extracted the teeth under general anaesthetic.
• E’s case is that Ms Malik is lying about her examination on 21st June 2012 and that she somehow altered the communication on the computer record. I completely reject that submission. I found Ms Malik to be an utterly truthful and a reliable witness. At one stage in the hearing, E suggested that the records had been falsified and Ms Malik had lied to the court because DC was concerned about his surgery being sued for negligence. For that reason, DC was called by the Official Solicitor, although in the event E did not put it to him that he had falsified the records. When DC gave evidence, he described Ms Malik as an excellent clinician to whom he had entrusted his patients as locum for many years. I accept Ms Malik’s account of the examination and what she said to E. Amongst the many revealing details is her note that E had told her that M could not have a local anaesthetic. It has been E’s case that she is allergic to local anaesthetics following an incident when she was younger, for which there was no independent evidence, and that this has been inherited by M. Ms Malik’s note, therefore, contains something that E must have told her.
• It follows that this is yet another example of E giving a false account of part of M’s medical history and thereafter relying on this false account to direct the course of his future treatment.
• In this instance, it is possible to trace the consequences for M of this fabricated account. In ignoring Ms Malik’s advice, failing to make an urgent appointment with DC on his return, taking M to another dentist, failing to give a full or accurate account to that other dentist and expressly declining further x-rays which would have been likely to reveal the abscesses, E was solely responsible for allowing M’s infected mouth to go untreated for over a year, thereby condemning him to further pain and suffering as the area of infection gradually got worse. Throughout the period of 14 months between Ms Malik’s examination and the eventual surgery to extract teeth, M suffered pain, repeatedly described by E, which Ms Malik advised in evidence was probably caused by the abscesses. Meanwhile, as I find, E pursued other increasingly extreme theories for the causes of M’s pain, none of which has any basis in fact, at a time when she knew or ought to have known that the cause of the trouble was the dental infection which she was concealing.
• On any view, this was deplorable and dangerous behaviour. M was and is a highly vulnerable young man, totally incapable of communicating his needs. E was his deputy and carer. He was dependent on her. She failed to protect him and acted in a way that was plainly contrary to his interests.

 

Other examples

 

• The history shows other examples where E gave descriptions of M’s health, notably to KH, but also to others, for which there was no independent supporting evidence. These include that M had lost sensation in his hands and feet; that he was suffering from an adverse effect to electromagnetic energies; that he had been diagnosed with what appeared to be brain seizures; that his urinary system had shut down; that he was finding it difficult to walk very far; that M’s immune and nervous system were down; that he had tumours in his gum sockets; that he had been diagnosed with chronic blood poisoning; that he had a black shadow sitting on his left sinuses that he had black gunge oozing from every orifice. Other diagnoses put forward by E and dismissed by Dr Carpenter were: rheumatoid arthritis; heavy metal poisoning (based again on an isolated test result when such a diagnosis turns on repeated elevated levels); and a defective blood brain barrier. I share Dr Carpenter’s astonishment at reading E’s account of how M had attended a cranial osteopathy appointment which:

 

” … had focused on the contorted membranes between the two frontal lobes, apparently where the optical and auditory brain stems sit. The twist in the central membrane was significant for most of the treatment to be spent on it and it would appear to have come from M’s head overheating, obviously trying to release body heat.”

 

• Many of these were repeated, along with others, in the document entitled, “Overview of M’s health” which E attached to the application at the start of these proceedings seeking the summary dismissal of the local authority’s application. I find that these were all false, or at least grossly exaggerated accounts of M’s symptoms. During the period June 2012 to September 2013, when this crescendo of false and exaggerated reporting took place, M was subjected to a large number of different tests, examinations and assessments, a number of which were invasive and all of which took up his time which would have been better occupied elsewhere.
• It is unnecessary to go into these or other examples in any greater detail. The local authority’s case on this aspect is plainly proved. I find that E has stated that M is suffering from numerous conditions, the overwhelming majority of which are not true, and has subjected M to unnecessary tests and interventions, and/or lied about his illnesses or tests.
• Relying on the professional view of Dr Beck, supported by Dr Adshead, it is asserted by the local authority that this amounts to factitious disorder imposed on others. I shall return to this assertion at the end of the judgment. Before doing so, it is appropriate to consider the other findings sought by the local authority.

 

 

In relation to the alternative therapy treatments given to M, at the behest of his parents, the Judge was sympathetic that for carers of a person with autism, the fact that there is no cure makes them willing to seek help from anywhere they can and that there are plenty of people willing to provide such help for a fee. The Judge was at pains to point out that this was not a hearing to rule on the efficacy or otherwise of  any individual form of treatment or therapy. What was of relevance here was the sheer volume of them and the intrusive impact on M’s day to day life

 

 

• By and large, it is the sheer range and number of the treatments and their indiscriminate use on an incapacitated person that gives rise to concern, rather than the risk of any harm befalling the individual. I accept Dr Carpenter’s evidence that there is no evidence that cranial osteopathy, rheumatology, colloidal silver or homeopathy generally are clinically beneficial. In the case of some treatments, they may have been harmful. I accept, for example, Dr Carpenter’s evidence that there may be concern about the use of auditory integration therapy. He quoted NICE as finding no good evidence that such therapy works. Research Autism quoted research evidence to say that such therapy was not helpful in improving perceptions of autism, although it may be of limited use in the help with sensory problems. Dr Carpenter was concerned, however, that people with hearing loss or infection or damage to the inner ear should not be treated in this way. Dr Carpenter observed that, for M, who has recurrent ear problems, such therapy was potentially dangerous. Equally, he was concerned about the use of oxygen therapy. In his report, his concern was about the use of hyperbaric oxygen therapy, which is associated with risks to ear and teeth, and would have been potentially risky to M. Throughout the hearing, E stated that the oxygen therapy had not been hyperbaric, although I note in her final statement E said at paragraph 245 that M “uses a hyperbaric oxygen chamber for health reasons.” The main concerns about oxygen therapy in M’s case were, first, the sheer degree of interference with the life of an incapacitated adult required to have oxygen administered to him for up to six hours a day and, second, the question of the theoretical process for the therapy provided by Dr Julu – neurodevelopmental dystautonomia – which is not mentioned in any international classification known to Dr Carpenter.
• I accept Dr Carpenter’s opinion that there is no evidence that any of these treatments were individually beneficial for M and that collectively they were intrusive and contrary to his best interests. M’s life was increasingly dominated by the programme of treatment to the exclusion of other activities. I find that E has implemented a programme of diet, supplements and treatments and therapies indiscriminately, with no analysis as to whether they are for M’s benefit, and on a scale that has been oppressive and contrary to his interests. She has exercised total control of this aspect of M’s life.
• I stress, again, that I am not making any definitive findings on the efficacy of alternative treatments generally. That is not the subject of these proceedings, which are about M. I do, however, find that: (1) there is no reliable evidence that the alternative treatments given to M have had any positive impact on people with autism generally or M in particular and (2) the approach to prescribing alternative treatments to and assessing the impact of such treatments on people with autism in general and M in particular has lacked the rigor and responsibility usually associated with conventional medicine.
• This demonstrates the fallacy of E’s belief that there are two parallel approaches to the diagnosis and treatment of autism – “mainstream medical” and “mainstream autism” – each of which is equally valid. The evidence in this hearing has demonstrated clearly that there is one approach – the clinical approach advocated by Dr Carpenter – that is methodical, rigorous and valid, and other approaches advocated by a number of other practitioners, for which there is no evidence of any positive impact and which (in this case at least) have been followed with insufficient rigor. Whilst each treatment may be harmless, they may, if imposed collectively and indiscriminately, be unduly restrictive and contrary to the patient’s interests. These disadvantages are compounded when, as in several instances in this case, insufficient consideration is given by the practitioners to the question of whether a mentally-incapacitated patient has consented to or wishes to have the treatment.

 

Factitious illness

 

 

• f it was established that E has exaggerated M’s condition and/or made false claims about illnesses that he does not have and/or given him medication that was unnecessary and/or obstructed a normal relationship with health care professionals, Dr Beck and Dr Adshead both concluded that it would then follow that factitious disorder imposed on other people has taken place. Both Dr. Beck and Dr. Adshead observed that the degree of contradiction between E’s claims and the medical records record indicates a pattern of abnormal illness behaviour which seems to have escalated in the last few years. The nature of the diagnoses put forward are couched in increasingly dramatic narrative terms but are not supported with corroborative medical evidence.
• Dr Beck believes that the underlying driver for the mother’s factitious disorder is that she is suffering from narcissistic personality disorder. Dr Adshead agrees with Dr Beck that there are significant features of personality disorder in E’s presentation, mainly narcissistic and histrionic features, and, in addition, Dr Adshead suspects that she may have some feature of an emotionally unstable personality disorder. As a psychiatrist, Dr Adshead reported that she had seen no evidence that E suffers from a severe mental illness. Dr Beck and Dr Adshead both thought that M’s health care and his identity as an illness sufferer is a key part of his mother’s relationship with him and that M’s health status clearly dominates that relationship. Dr Beck expressed the view that the mother’s desire to find other people to blame appeared to serve functions for her. First, it distracts from her own shame (self-imposed) and, secondly, it draws attention to her and her own needs. Dr Beck concluded her first report by observing that, whilst she did not doubt that E loves her son, she does not believe that she is capable of putting his needs above her own.
• Dr Adshead advised that, if the facts are proven that support the accounts of factitious disorder imposed on another, together with a diagnosis of personality disorder, this provokes questions of further future risk and how the relationship between carer and a dependent other should be managed in the future. In her experience, the risk of harm to the dependent other is real, especially if the carer has no insight, although the nature of the harm may not necessarily be severe or dangerous. Having seen there is a real risk, it should be fairly clear that the risk can be managed if E is prevented from being the person responsible for M’s care. Once a carer is removed from the role of a carer, there is usually no danger in the carer and the dependent other spending time together. Dr Adshead advises, however, that in such circumstances there must be a proper health care plan put in place, overseen by a senior health care professional. It is Dr Beck’s recommendation that all of M’s health needs hereafter should be overseen by the local authority. Dr Beck agreed that there would be the real risk of an emotional mental and physical nature were M to return to live with E. She also believed that M’s access to opportunities to make choices and grow as an individual would be curtailed
• .
• I accept the opinion evidence given by Dr Beck and Dr Adshead. I find that E’s behaviour amounts to factitious disorder imposed on others. It was suggested by E in the course of the hearing, relying on material available on the internet, that the diagnosis was made without justification, as a means of attacking mothers of children with autism with a view to removing them from their care. I have no reason to believe that there is any basis for this assertion, but it certainly does not apply in this case. I am sure that the diagnosis of factitious disorder in this case is valid.

 

 

CONCLUSIONS

 

• This court acknowledges the enormous demands placed on anyone who has to care for a disabled child. Even though such carers are motivated by love – and I accept that both E and A love M and are deeply devoted to him – the burdens and strains on them are very great. Every reasonable allowance must be made for the fact that they love their vulnerable son and want the absolute best for him. Every reasonable allowance must be made for the impact of these burdens and strains when assessing allegations about the parents’ behaviour. However, having made every reasonable allowance for those factors, I find the behaviour exhibited on many occasions, by E in particular, was wholly unreasonable. I agree with the insightful observation of the independent investigator appointed to consider the parents’ complaints in 2010 quoted above. E and A do feel that their mission has meant having to fight every inch of the way, against health and legal services and, more recently, social care services. This has influenced the extent to which they are able to work in partnership with statutory agencies. As they have such clear ideas about all aspects of M’s life and believe the conclusions they have reached about him are correct, it is understandable that they have had difficulty in accepting the views of others where they differ from their own. However, their attitude and approach has far exceeded anything that could be considered as reasonable.
• E’s friends admire her determination to stop at nothing to get M the care, support and long-term achievement he deserves. Unfortunately, I find that this determination has led her to behave in a devious and destructive way, relentlessly criticising, occasionally bullying, repeatedly complaining about those who do not follow her bidding. Throughout this hearing she has repeatedly accused the local authority of pursuing its own agenda. I find that it is she who has an unshakeable agenda to follow her own course in pursuit of her own beliefs about M’s condition and how it should be treated.
• E’s allegations of multiple conspiracies are a fantasy. It is nonsense to suggest that there has been a conspiracy by large numbers of the medical profession to conceal the truth about the MMR vaccine. It is ridiculous to suggest that the local authority has pursued a vendetta against E and set out to remove M from his family for financial reasons and that the staff at the various residential homes have fallen into line and in some cases perjured themselves under financial pressure from the local authority. It is delusional to suggest that the Official Solicitor has been motivated in this case by an agenda designed to prevent a revival of the claims arising out of the MMR and to that end suborned experts. The tone of these outlandish claims by E has become increasingly more strident as the case progressed, culminating in the documents filed after the conclusion of the hearing in which she expresses outrage at the conduct of the local authority and the Official Solicitor at the hearing on 6th March, in terms that are barely coherent. In their final submissions, E and A have made a number of further attacks on the integrity of the Official Solicitor, all of which I reject. It is unnecessary to go into any further detail. They are wholly misconceived.
• The critical facts established in this case can be summarised as follows. M has autistic spectrum disorder. There is no evidence that his autism was caused by the MMR vaccination. His parents’ account of an adverse reaction to that vaccination is fabricated. The mother has also given many other false accounts about M’s health. He has never had meningitis, autistic enterocolitis, leaky gut syndrome, sensitivity to gluten or casein, disorder of the blood brain barrier, heavy metal poisoning, autonomic dysautonomia (which, in any event, is not recognised in any classification of medical conditions), rheumatoid arthritis or Lyme disease. As a result of E maintaining that he had these and other conditions, she has subjected M to numerous unnecessary tests and interventions. He did have a dental abscess for which E failed to obtain proper treatment and caused him 14 months of unnecessary pain and suffering. E has also insisted that M be subjected to a wholly unnecessary diet and regime of supplements. Through her abuse of her responsibility entrusted to her as M’s deputy, she has controlled all aspects of his life, restricted access to him by a number of professionals and proved herself incapable of working with the local authority social workers and many members of the care staff at the various residential homes where M has lived. This behaviour amounts to factitious disorder imposed on another. In addition, E has a combination of personality disorders – a narcissistic personality disorder, histrionic personality disorder and elements of an emotional unstable personality disorder.
• Despite her serious conclusions about E’s personality, it is Dr Beck’s view that these parents have a lot to contribute to their son if they are capable of offering the care and support he needs under the guidance of an overarching programme of care coordinated by the local authority. I agree that they would have an enormous amount to offer their son if they could work in collaboration with the local authority social workers and other professionals in M’s best interests. I have not given up hope that this may be achieved. Such an outcome would be manifestly to M’s advantage. It will not be achieved, however, unless E and A – in particular, E – can demonstrate a fundamental change of attitude. If this does not happen, this court will have to take permanent steps to restrict their involvement in his life.

 

 

 

* If you are thinking that the word ‘quack’ appeared in any of my previous draft wordings for those three options you would be deeply wrong and misguided. Shame on you, you dreadful cynic.