Day one: what happened on 6 July
A factual account of 6 July 2026 — the day an 82-year-old woman was taken from her own home against her will. Recorded from Trudy's own account.
Addition and correction — 15 July 2026. As promised at the foot of this post, we are updating it now that more is known. (1) The visit that morning had been announced the day before: on 5 July the family physician informed the family that an independent doctor would visit on Monday morning. What was never announced or discussed in advance is that this visit could end, that same morning, in a forced admission — against Trudy’s explicit and repeated refusal. (2) Legal counsel: on 10 July the family instructed a law firm; on 13 July that firm confirmed in writing that the instruction was not accepted due to firm-wide holiday absence. The family has since been urgently arranging new counsel of Trudy’s own choosing. (3) Unchanged as of 15 July: the court order and the medical statement have still not been provided to Trudy or to the family.
This is a factual account of what happened in Trudy’s own home on 6 July 2026, recorded from her own account. These are facts, not opinions. The reader can form their own judgement.
The appointment
On 6 July 2026, at 9:15 in the morning, an appointment was scheduled at Trudy’s home — in the house in Gouda where she has lived for more than thirty years, and which she owns. The meeting was to be about the continuation of her home care. Two care professionals were present: a team leader from the home-care service and a physician. Her son was also present at this meeting.
As far as Trudy understood, it was a conversation about how her home care would be arranged going forward. Not whether she could stay at home.
What Trudy asked for
That morning, Trudy stated clearly and repeatedly that she wished to remain living in her own home, with the home care needed for that. Because of her COPD, what she sought was suitable, scheduled help at home, so that she could stay there safely. That is what she asked for.
The decision
What happened next is this. There — in the presence of Trudy and her son — it was stated that home care was no longer considered viable, and that she would be placed against her will in a closed care facility — far from her home town, her GP, and her familiar surroundings.
This decision had not been discussed in advance with Trudy herself. Not with her son, who has been in daily contact with her for more than ten years and is closely involved in her care. Not with the private help she had arranged herself. Trudy expressly refused this outcome on the spot. That same day, she was taken anyway.
An 82-year-old woman, in her own home, who said she wished to remain there — was removed from that home within a single morning. These are the facts.
Who was present — and who was not
Her son was present himself that morning — at the conversation with the physician, and when his mother was taken from her home against her express will. He saw it with his own eyes.
The person who was afterwards designated as the sole contact person, and through whom all of Trudy’s contact with the outside world has run since, was not present at the events at the house that morning.
At whose request this admission was applied for has not been disclosed to the family members who were present — not that day, and not since. Why so far-reaching a step was not discussed in advance with the son who stood right there, and who it actually was that requested it, are questions that remain unanswered to this day. They are being put through the proper legal channels.
What was recorded
The events of that morning were captured on video and audio, recorded by a camera that was present in Trudy’s home with her consent. These recordings are kept confidentially and are available to the lawyer and, if needed, to the court. They are not being made public.
Now
Trudy is currently held, against her will, in a closed facility. Her wish is unchanged and simple: to return to her own home, with the home care she herself asked for — care her family is willing to arrange at its own expense.
The family has put the course of events to a lawyer, and has requested the underlying documents in order to have it examined: on what grounds, and on whose authority, all of this took place. While that review is ongoing, no names are named and no conclusions are drawn. But the questions remain — and they are pressing.
Last updated: 15 July 2026. This page will be updated as more becomes known.