← All updates 10 July 2026 · 04:00 read

Day five: a hearing without us — and without her voice

On 10 July 2026 a court hearing took place about Trudy's situation. Her son was not summoned or informed, and Trudy says she was unable to make her own voice heard. The family is having the process reviewed by counsel.

Correction and addition — 15 July 2026. As this post promised, we are updating it now that more is known. (1) Legal counsel: the law firm approached on 10 July confirmed in writing on 13 July that the instruction was not accepted due to firm-wide holiday absence; no work was carried out and no urgent hearing was requested. The family has since been urgently arranging new counsel of Trudy’s own choosing. (2) The 10 July hearing: the family has since learned that it took place at the facility, in the presence of the judge, and that Trudy was assisted by a court-assigned lawyer — not by counsel of her own choosing. That Trudy, in her own words, was unable to make her own voice heard remains her account of that day. (3) Unchanged: as of 15 July, the court order and the medical statement have still not been provided to Trudy or to the family.

On 10 July 2026 a court hearing took place regarding Trudy’s forced admission. This is a factual account of what her son has learned about it. These are facts, not opinions. The reader can form their own judgement.

No summons, no notice

Her son was not summoned and not informed about this hearing. He received no letter, no phone notification, and no communication of any kind that a hearing would take place that day. As a result he was unable to attend, to present his side of the matter, or to be represented.

From a telephone call he had with his mother later that day, it appears that she too says she was not given the opportunity to make her own voice heard. For a decision that affects her freedom and her home, that is a striking fact.

The family has serious questions about how this hearing came about: whether a proper summons was issued, whether the statutory deadlines were observed, and whether Trudy was given the opportunity to be assisted by a lawyer of her own choosing. These questions have been put to the lawyer, who is examining the process and the underlying documents. While that review is ongoing and the documents have not been received in full, no definitive conclusions are being drawn.

What is clear

Trudy is lucid and responsive. In the call with her son she again made clear what she wants: to return to her own home, in her own street, among the people who know her. She cannot reconcile herself to her admission.

What is happening now

  • Specialist legal assistance in the field of the Care and Compulsion Act has been engaged; the family has formally instructed the lawyer to represent the case.
  • An urgent hearing is being requested, so that the court also hears the family’s side.
  • The full underlying documents have been requested and are being compelled through legal channels.
  • A request for discharge from the facility is being prepared, aimed at her return home with home care the family wishes to arrange at its own expense.

This post will be updated as more becomes known.