A mother has been banned from visiting her severely disabled son in an NHS-funded care home, escalating a dispute over his medical care, including the potential withdrawal of food and drink. The mother, identified only as FN, has had her contact with her son, referred to as FHR, reduced to brief video calls.
FHR suffered a catastrophic hypoxic brain injury in 2020 at the age of 22, requiring round-the-clock care. His mother had dedicated herself to his care at home for nearly five years before he was moved to a specialist facility by the NHS North East London Integrated Care Board (ICB) a year ago. Since raising concerns about his treatment at the facility, she was barred from in-person visits.
The ICB argues that FHR, who is deemed to be in a vegetative state, should have clinically assisted nutrition and hydration withdrawn, a move his mother describes as a death sentence. A judge is expected to rule on his fate imminently.
Mounting Concerns Over Contact Restrictions
FN claims that her son has shown signs of consciousness and that the care home's actions have led to his health deteriorating, including developing aspiration pneumonia shortly after his transfer. She states that FHR had no such issues during his four-and-a-half years of care at home.
Following a hospital admission, the care home imposed severe restrictions, initially banning the entire family and later allowing only the mother to have a daily video call. This incident, FN alleges, triggered the contact order. The care provider cited the family's "challenging behaviour" as justification for the restrictions.
Campaigners and legal experts note a growing trend of punitive contact orders that isolate families from disabled relatives. Jacqui Shurlock, CEO of the Challenging Behaviour Foundation (CBF), described the abuse of such orders as a "systemic issue" and noted a tendency to blame parents who raise concerns.
Hanna Whitehead, a lawyer specializing in the Court of Protection, has observed an increase in these orders being misused, with care homes sometimes using bans as a convenient way to avoid dealing with family complaints. She highlighted that while some orders are justified, others may be used to sidestep difficult conversations.
Legal Battles and Judicial Involvement
FN has been involved in numerous court hearings since 2022 when the ICB first sought to alter FHR's care arrangements. A judge ruled in April 2023 that FHR should move to a care home for an assessment to determine his level of consciousness, with the outcome intended to inform the decision on withdrawing life support.
The mother believes that the care home's insistence on her inability to visit, combined with the argument that her son would not receive adequate care at home, has left judges with little choice but to side with the care provider. A ruling in May 2025, which placed an "interim" ban on her visits, stated that FHR's placement was "at the brink of serving notice" and that it was "imperative that the placement is protected."
Despite this, the court urged the ICB and care provider to "actively consider" re-introducing in-person visits. Another judgment in April of this year acknowledged FN as a "devoted mother" and again urged reconsideration of the ban. The care home subsequently increased video call duration from 20 to 40 minutes.
Most recently, FN was presented with a 27-clause agreement to sign before visits would be considered, stipulating supervised visits and prohibiting her from raising complaints about her son's care. Her lawyers are reviewing the document.
FN maintains that she is better equipped to care for her son and has argued for his return home. She claims FHR has been hospitalized five times during his care home stay, compared to once when cared for at home, and has suffered multiple avoidable infections. She argues that the bid to withdraw care is "neglect dressed up as protection."