It's stitch up Dad time. Here are the reasons Hillingdon gave in their court statement, why they "believed" that Steven should not return home to me.
Sorry for pointing out the obvious but as you can see they are founded on their "belief", with no evidence to support those beliefs.
1. The LA has concerns that Mr Neary does not share the concern about the level of risk posed by Steven Neary's behaviour and his plan to take Steven on holiday was an example of this disparity.
2. There have been additional concerns that Mr Neary has managed the difficult behaviours of his son with food treats. The behaviour specialists have also expressed concern that Mr Neary does not fully embrace the behaviour guidelines that are in place.
3. The LA proposal is to carefully consider a plan to allow Steven Neary to visit his home that are not "treat visits" with fun activities, but "real life" contact visits where low level demands are placed upon Steven Neary to test out his responses and the management strategies within the home environment.
4. The LA also has concerns about under reporting of incidents whilst Steven Neary is at home. There is a suggestion that Mark Neary might minimise his son's behavioural risk. I am of the view that Mr Neary needs to consider the very real risk that Steven Neary's behaviours pose to himself and others before he can return home.
5. The LA intends to build in measures to maintain contact for Steve (!) with his family. This might include supporting Steven Neary to have contact via a web based camera facility.
I was very scared by these allegations - how do you prove that their "beliefs" were unfounded. How can you provide evidence for something that doesn't exist?
Thankfully, the judge rejected every single one of the "beliefs" and "concerns".