I’m not sure how much you know about me so I’ll give you a quick whirlwind bio in a few sentences.
Originally Italian but born and bred in London. My dream job (pre kids which lasted about 5 years) was at British Vogue in the publishing department. I have 2 little boys, my first son has Autism… he doesn’t talk yet at 8 years old. Rollercoaster parenting to say the least. Freelance work remains my saving grace, both financially and mentally, working at parenting and kids fashion magazines editorially and selling their advertising. So that’s me! And this year, on this platform, I’ll very much try and share a more balanced work/life journey.
I LOVE
Wheat kids puffer jacket on sale at £75
Rachel Gray wave mug £32 available at TOAST
Romeo and Jules, pretty in pink notecards £85
Tuwi alpaca blanket (at 50% off!!) £99
Papier gratitude journals £22
Words:
We’ve been looking at special need schools for our son. He’s currently at a magical mainstream school with an asd base but we are all on the same page (home and school) that as he grows bigger and STRONGER, it’s best to try and transition him, the earlier the better, to a school that has better therapies, more tailored provisions and an environment where his little body can regulate better in.
So I’ve been searching for schools near us which can cater to his profile. He’s regarded as complex, not only because he is still pre verbal at 8 but because his needs and wants are very particular but at the same time change quickly. He is a very determined boy so once he’s accomplished Mount Everest he’ll move onto a new location.
There have been 2 that we’ve seen and that we liked a lot. But there was one which left me angry. It was the reply to a question I asked: “how do you encourage independence?”. It was a primary sen school so all kids were under the age of 12. Sole had physical disabilities but some didn’t. I specified I meant it was for those more able children. The reply was “oh, our kids are not able to be independent”. I understand it was an open day. I understand she may have been generalising. But it left me boiling. It made me deeply sad. I was angry. I wanted to cry. The whole world felt heavy and on very delicate shoulders. It was one reply from one person which possibly was even only her opinion. The relief when this week I saw a school who was all about giving “these kids” as much independence as possible and allowing them to grow and flourish made me smile like a Cheshire cat! It really made me think how powerful words can be. This lady meant nothing to me, yet her words brought me emotions that hadn’t crept up for some time. I suddenly became overwhelmed with worry about my sons future, terrified at the thought that society would close in on these children and we’d regress back to the old days when “autism didn’t exist… *cough cough*”. Words are critical, strong and powerful. In a world where we can choose, choose your words wisely!
London days out (with kids too!)
Infinity mirror rooms Tate modern (until end of April)
An afternoon with Michael Rosen at the Southbank centre (book tickets now for feb half term!)
Dinosaur revolution horniman museum
BEDTIME READING: what is the mental health reform?
The Mental Health Act is a law that tells people with a mental health disorder what their rights are and how they can be treated.
In 2019 the conservative party vowed to legislate so that patients suffering from mental health conditions, including anxiety or depression, have greater control over their treatment and receive the dignity and respect they deserve”. They have officially broken their manifesto pledge as it has been confirmed that there will be no reform of the Mental Health Act 1983 before the next election.
The bill contained provisions to reform the Mental Health Act 1983, which currently allows people with autism and other learning difficulties to be detained and placed in mental health hospitals.
Charities also supported the bill on the grounds it was intended to address concerns that black people are four times more likely to be detained under the Act.
What the proposed legislation would have done
Tightened the criteria for detention for assessment under section 2 of the act by requiring that there would otherwise be serious harm to the patient or another person and that detaining the patient is necessary given the nature, degree and likelihood of that harm. Currently, a person may be detained for assessment if they are suffering from a mental health disorder of a nature or degree that warrants detention and they ought to be detained for the purposes of their health or safety or the protection of others.
Made equivalent changes in criteria for detention for treatment under section 3 and further tightened the criteria by requiring that a person only be detained if necessary treatment cannot otherwise be provided and that treatment that has a reasonable prospect of alleviating their condition, or preventing it from getting worse, is available.
Prohibiting a person from being detained for treatment simply on the basis of them having autism or a learning disability. Currently, people can be detained for treatment on the basis of autism, while a person with a learning disability can be detained if this is associated with “abnormally aggressive or seriously irresponsible conduct”.
Replaced the nearest relative (NR) role with that of nominated person (NP). While the roles would have had similar functions, including objecting to detention and discharging the person, the patient would have been able to choose their NP at any time they had capacity to do so.
Extended the right to an independent mental health advocate to informal (ie non-detained) patients.
Tightened criteria for the use of community treatment orders (CTOs) – which place conditions on people receiving community treatment after detention in hospital. Under the proposals, CTOs would only have been permissible if there was a risk of “serious harm” to the health and safety of the patient or others, consideration had been given to the “nature, degree and likelihood of the harm and how soon it would occur”, and there was a reasonable prospect of therapeutic benefit.
Mental health charity Mind said the lack of a bill was a “huge blow to our community”.
“More than 50,000 people were held under the Mental Health Act last year, so it is incomprehensible that legislation which would help people at their most unwell has been de-prioritised,” said chief executive Sarah Hughes. “There could not be a worse time to abandon this bill, especially given the recent string of exposés revealing unsafe mental health care across the country.
“People with mental health problems, countless professionals and other experts poured huge amounts of time, effort and resource into reforming this legislation to make it fit for the 21st century. Their voices are being ignored. Today is a huge blow for our community, but we will continue to fight to raise the standard of mental healthcare.”