What actions should be taken when an individual asserts they have a court order authorising the removal of a vulnerable person from one placement to another, when in fact no such order exists—only that an application has been submitted and is pending?
1 Like
I’ve been in a range of similar situations over the last 35 years. My responses will have varied depending on what’s at stake, the status of the individual making the original assertion, the context, and potential consequences of following a course of action if the assertion was followed. The following are my example responses which will have varied according to the latter considerations. Not advice to you or anyone else. Always seek independent legal advice.
Mindful of the above disclaimer, this is shared experience only of a range of approaches I will have adopted in the past based on mysterious assertions and applications.
Brutal documentation of all the circumstances, including how I came to know that the assertion was factually incorrect. Followed by a range of responses based on the circumstances and context (originally italicsed).
Friendly and non-confrontational
- I/we think there may have been a misunderstanding on your part. Our checking shows (here is the evidence) only that an application has been submitted and is pending. This means we are not obliged to follow an order that does not exist at this time. Let’s discuss it further.
Aggressive or confrontational
- You must stop telling lies (without explanation) - end of.
- You must stop telling lies (with full disclosures) - end of.
Less aggressive or confrontational (again depending on italicised contexts above)
- Without disclosures: My/Our checking of the facts reveal no evidence to support your assertion. I/we will continue on our chosen [path/actions]. You are burdened to stop me/us.
- With disclosures: Here is our evidence, which shows your assertion is incorrect. I/We will continue as planned. I/we will continue on our chosen [path/actions]. You are burdened to stop me/us.
War mode - legalistic with a prelude to legal action:
- Your assertion is so factually incorrect and not a mere mistake on your part, that it forms evidence that you intended to subvert our lawful actions. Correct your assertion in writing within 36 hours of this notice. You may consider this as a threat of legal action, which I/we are prepared to take.
- Your assertion is so factually incorrect (here is the evidence) that it potentially engages the law surrounding misrepresentation. You are instructed by me/us to correct your assertion in writing. If you do not do this within 36 hours of this notice, you invite difficult circumstances upon yourself. You may consider this as a threat of legal action, which I/we are prepared to take.
- Should I/We find reason to think that your actions lead to a reasonable inference that you intended to cause harm (irrespective of whether you believe no harm was intended), there could be serious consequences for you. Please correct your assertion in writing within 36 hours of this notice. You may consider this as a threat of legal action, which I/we are prepared to take.
So I could be from friendly, to confrontational, to war-mode depending on context and circumstances. OP - please appreciate that your post did not give specifics and I am not seeking any specifics. I have only shared a range of my responses in similar circumstances over the years, which may differ entirely to your own. What I do overall in my practice varies with about 95% of most ‘people.’ None of the above shared experience is advice. I shared only with the intention that it may be a source of reflection for you. My experience and course of action may be irrelevant.
Thank you for your reply.
I felt responsible for not requesting proof at the time, and just believing them, but that does not excuse the deliberate misstatement. The term “lie” is an accurate description of what occurred. When I challenged the individual directly, they refused to engage and immediately terminated the call rather than clarify or correct their position.
I can substantiate my account with clear and verifiable evidence. While the full consequences of the misrepresentation are complex and not appropriate to detail in this forum, the impact on the individual concerned has been profoundly damaging. The situation carries serious safeguarding implications and warrants urgent attention—it must not be minimised or dismissed.
The terms “war mode” and “lies” accurately reflect the gravity of what has occurred. I am now gravely concerned about the well-being of the vulnerable person affected. Despite the seriousness of the situation, those responsible have refused to accept accountability. Instead of engaging constructively, they have adopted a combative stance—deflecting scrutiny and escalating hostility rather than addressing the harm caused.
I should be afforded trust, transparency, and accountability, that expectation has not been met. Instead, I have encountered evasiveness, misrepresentation, and a refusal to engage with the evidence I’ve provided. This lack of accountability is not only unjust—it places the vulnerable person I’m supporting at further risk.