A year worth fighting for

Words by Barbara Sike

Video: RightsInfo

How the Human Rights Act helped a dad reunite with his son

“Human rights is ‘dad I want to take a cake across to Wonka Wayne’s house’ and being able to do something as ordinary as that.”

Stephen Neary lives a simple but full life: he goes out with his friends, loves a strawberry milkshake whilst watching Mr Bean on the TV, and listening to music – especially those Take That records with Robbie Williams.

However, all this was taken away from Stephen for 359 days back in 2009, when his dad reached out for help from trusted social workers to place his son in a respite unit for a few days.

“It seemed like the most natural thing to do at the time” said Mark Neary, father of Stephen in a speech he held at the 2017 National Advocacy Conference.

Stephen’s case became one of the most cited examples of serious breach of the Human Rights Act Articles 5 and 8: the articles protecting Liberty and the Right to a Family Life.

Mark talked about the year-long struggles he had to go through to get his son back from the council.

The first few weeks

The journey started on a Wednesday afternoon, just a day before New Year’s Eve in 2009. Mark got the flu, and to ensure his son is well looked after while he is recovering, he placed him in a respite unit – a place where social workers assured him his son will be safe.

The very next day, a social worker called him to report on Stephen’s tough night with a number of incidents. She proposed moving him to a Positive Behaviour centre and extending his time under professional care “to give you a chance to get back on your feet” as Mark quoted the social worker.

“Naively and foolishly, I agreed. It was probably the worst decision of my life,” he adds.

The next 3 months

“Stephen was held on no legal basis, he could’ve left any time,” he said.

But Mark did what he thought was in the best interest of his son.

“The Human Rights Act didn’t occur to me at the time,” Mark added.

Meanwhile, the care unit kept a detailed log of all the issues day-to-day issues with Stephen, including his trouble living with other residents. As Mark says, these were raised on their weekly meetings to argue that Stephen should indeed not be released to go home.

To this time, Mark was not allowed direct contact with his son, any communication had to happen through the social workers or unit manager.

A solicitor later said that if Mark has shared these stories on court his case would not stand, he would just look like a “Mad Pat Paranoid Dad.”

Some of Stephen’s long-time caretakers were allowed in the team looking after him in the unit. But none of them – including the social worker directly employed and paid by Mark – was allowed to discuss any details of his son with him.

The next step

On his weekly meeting with the unit manager and other experts was the only way Mark could get information on the well-being of his son.

A number of people challenged the viewpoint of the facility, he said, but they all disappeared from these meetings after they raised their voices.

“My voice was silenced. The social workers’ voice was silenced. Stephen’s voice was definitely not heard.”

As his father explained, Stephen has a unique way of expressing himself when he can’t find the words. “He has an encyclopaedic mind for music” he said.

Stephen would start singing a song to share his feelings, wishes and will. His dad know this.

According to reports from his daily life, Stephen would meet the unit manager every morning, and whilst shaking hands, he would start singing a classic: I want to break free by Queen.

Trigger

One day, Stephen escaped from his care unit, which gave reason for a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguarding (DoLS) authorisation. However, notes from a meeting earlier that week proved the decision was already made by then. Four bullet points detailed how Stephen’s stay should be extended, a long-term accommodation should be located and that all this should be kept from his father.

For this to be authorised, he had to go through two mental tests to assess whether he is capable of making decisions of where he wants to live: home or in the care centre.

As Mark details, on the first meeting they used 2 photos of the care units he has been in, and a ClipArt image of “his home.” The second occasion a psychiatrist asked a series of questions. According to the father, the doctor kept going until Stephen got confused by the house he knew to be “Stephen’s house” being repeatedly referred to as “dad’s house.” He couldn’t make the connection. And that was enough proof for the doctor to rule Stephen is not capable of making decisions of his own life.

A best-interest decision was made: Stephen has to stay under professional care. A tender from an institution in Wales to take care of him was quickly accepted. His dad lives in West London.

Media attention

The real change in the Neary family’s case came after Mark started the “Get me my son back” campaign. His cause attracted a big media attention and people were quick to offer help.

By mid-November, Stephen had a new barrister and they have found a human right’s lawyer to help their case.

Three weeks later, their hearing was scheduled at the Court of Protection.

Mark prepared for a long trial, he prepared to tell a whole year’s events in detail. But instead, the judge had one question: if he lifted the DoLS, what would Stephen’s home be like?

The first time anyone has asked him that in the whole process, Mark said.

The judge ruled that Stephen should be released the same day. He could go home.

“I remember sitting down watching him the day he came home pouring himself a strawberry milkshake watching countdown on the telly,” his dad said.

“All these kind of details of his life that make Stephen’s life fulfilling taught me that the year was a year worth fighting for.”

In April 2011, the court ruled that Hillingdon Council unlawfully kept him in the unit, breaching his rights to Liberty and Family life. Right the Human Rights Act grants for all humans.