This judgment was delivered in private.
The judge has given leave for this version of the judgment to be published on
condition that (irrespective of what is contained in the judgment) in any
published version of the judgment the anonymity of the children and members of
their family must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives
of the media, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with.
Failure to do so will be a contempt of court.
Neutral Citation Number: [2019] EWFC 62
IN THE FAMILY COURT SITTING AT BOURNEMOUTH
Courts of Justice
Deansleigh Road
Bournemouth
BH7 7DS
Date: 10/10/19
Before:
HIS HONOUR JUDGE DANCEY
Sitting as a section 9 Judge
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between:
|
|
Dorset Council
|
Applicant
|
|
|
- and -
|
|
|
|
A mother
|
1st Respondent
|
|
|
-and-
|
|
|
|
A father
|
2nd Respondent
|
|
|
-and-
|
|
|
|
Child A
(by her children’s guardian Quiraine Scheepers)
|
3rd Respondents
|
Adam Langrish (instructed by Dorset
Council Legal Services) for the Applicant
The 1st Respondent did not attend
The 2nd
Respondent did not attend
Vanessa Cowlard, solicitor for the 3rd Respondent
Hearing date: 30 September 2019
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JUDGMENT
His Honour Judge Dancey:
1)
On 12 August 2019 I made a care order and, on 30 September 2019, a final
deprivation of liberty (DOLs) order in respect of a young person, A, a girl
aged 15½ years.
2)
I am not giving this judgment to explain why I made these orders (which
nobody opposed) but because, as I suggested to A when she came to a hearing, I
thought her story should be told.
3)
Although I identify the local authority in this case, I am not going to name
individual workers. The problems that I will describe are more about lack of
suitable resources than failures by social workers.
4)
I am writing this judgment in a way that I hope will be accessible for A
and her family.
5)
A is a bright and articulate girl. I have met with her. I will not
say it was easy for she told me in no uncertain terms what she thought about
things. It was quite challenging meeting with her. But I am glad to have done
so and listened to her.
6)
The local authority have been involved with A’s family since 2017.
Her parents used drugs. Their relationship was violent and abusive. They
didn’t supervise A properly. She didn’t have proper boundaries. For a time A
was living with her father. He gave her cigarettes. A said she used and
dealt cannabis. A’s behaviour went downhill. She often went missing.
Social workers were worried that she was at risk of sexual exploitation. They
said she was beyond the control of her parents.
7)
On 6 August 2018 the police used their powers to protect A. A’s
mother agreed to her being voluntarily accommodated in foster placements.
However, A found it difficult to comply with rules in her foster homes and went
missing again. So she was placed in a residential unit in Shropshire where
she was able to get some therapeutic parenting. While there A had to go to
hospital a number of times because she was self-harming.
8)
At this point A had been excluded from school and wasn’t getting any
formal education. The Virtual School tried to access a place for her at a
learning centre.
9)
On 11 January 2019 the local authority issued care proceedings on the
basis that A was beyond parental control. The parents accept that and did not
oppose the court making an order placing A in the interim care of the local
authority. This meant that the local authority was able to exercise parental
responsibility for A.
10)
The
placement in Shropshire was due to end on 30 January 2019. A wanted to return
to Dorset, ideally to her father. At this point that couldn’t happen, not
least because he was in prison. In reality though, neither of A’s parents
have been able to look after her safely, given her risky behaviour.
11)
Another
placement was found for A in Somerset. This was an unregulated placement
staffed by MJ Staffing. The social workers considered a plan for A to live
with her aunt but this was not thought to be safe because of A’s recent
behaviour at her placement. This included assaulting staff and going
missing. So the social workers thought that A still needed a residential
placement and that has not changed.
12)
Because the
placement in Somerset and later placements have all involved 24/7 supervision
of A and the need to be able to lock doors and windows to stop her going
missing, I have made a series of DOLs orders authorising those restrictions on
her liberty. These have been reviewed regularly and particularly when
placements have changed.
13)
The court
appointed a psychologist, Dr Jefferis, to do a report to understand why A was
behaving as she was and to suggest what might be done to help her.
Unfortunately, A refused to meet with Dr Jefferis but he was able to do a
report based on the information he had. He thought that A’s psychological
make up was extremely concerning. He said she is a profoundly disturbed young
person who would routinely place herself at risk if not kept in a tightly
regulated environment. She showed aggression, defiance and contempt towards
her mother. Behaviour at school led to her being excluded.
14)
Dr Jefferis
thought A’s problems started at an early age and was caused by poor attachments
with her parents and exposure to their drug use, parental conflict, domestic
abuse and multiple carers. A had painful feelings of sadness, self-doubt,
insecurity, resentment and anger which came out in her risky behaviours. Her
anger, dysregulation and problems forming close relationships results from her
distress and lack of secure attachments. It is important that A understands
this is not her fault.
15)
Dr Jefferis
thought that A’s parents, while being well-intentioned, would not be able to
meet her needs for safety and boundaries. As there was no viable family
placement, Dr Jefferis thought that a residential placement was the only option
that could realistically meet A’s needs. He saw a need to meet some very
basic aims of improving A’s trust of those around her and to become less
defensive. He hoped this would enable her to move on and regulate (control)
her emotions and behaviours and develop resilience and self-esteem. Over time
there could be therapeutic interventions. He could not see a situation in
which A would be able to return to her parents, but contact with them and her
aunt was important.
16)
On 16 April
2019 A was moved to another placement, this time in the New Forest. A seemed
to settle better in this placement but it was a 90-day crisis placement and A
would need to be moved to another placement on 15 July 2019. It was hoped
this would be a permanent placement.
17)
Unfortunately,
a permanent placement could not be, and still has not been, found for A. At
the end of the New Forest placement she was moved to another unregulated
placement in Weymouth supported initially by Serenity Welfare and then Quayside
Childcare (and another agency, Medgen, for three days while Quayside underwent
staff training).
18)
I made a
final care order on 12 August 2019 which everyone agreed was necessary. I have
continued to review the DOLs order down to 30 September when I made the final
order.
19)
As we can
see, by August A had already had a number of changes of placement, from foster
placements in August 2018, then to Shropshire until January, then Somerset
until April, then New Forest until July and then Weymouth. Two of those
placements had been unregulated. The need for a permanent placement was
crucial if the progress that Dr Jefferis (and everybody else) hoped for was to
be achieved.
20)
On 20
August 2019 A had yet another move, this time to another unregulated placement
in Wimborne, again staffed by Quayside. A attended a hearing on 27 August to
approve DOLs at this new placement. At that point the plan was for a permanent
regulated placement with Cambian in Plymouth. An assessment by Cambian was
planned for 29 August. That was cancelled by Cambian at short notice (in fact
no notice – A, her mother the social worker and Quayside staff were waiting for
Cambian to arrive). Cambian apologised for the lack of communication.
21)
The
assessment was re-scheduled for 3 September. At 5pm on 2 September Cambian
emailed the social work team manager and the local authority’s commissioning
team cancelling the assessment as the vacancy had been given to another child.
22)
A was
disappointed by this. Although she had settled well into the Wimborne
placement (and was not going missing), she wanted to move on to something more
permanent.
23)
I should
stress at this point that the social worker and her team manager (for whose
professionalism and dedication I have the greatest respect) had been working
tirelessly with the commissioning team to find a permanent placement for A.
They had constantly been putting out literally hundreds of enquiries to
possible providers around the country to try and find something suitable. It
was not that Dorset were unwilling to find or fund a permanent placement. It
was simply that nothing could be found.
24)
Late on the
evening of Friday 13 September 2019 a decision was taken by senior management
at the local authority (not, I hasten to add the social worker or team manager,
who knew nothing about it until the following Monday) to move A temporarily to
a caravan park in Bridport. At the time A was enjoying a planned contact
with her mother at a cinema. When she came out of the cinema she was told
that she was going to be visited by an out of hours (OOH) social worker at
10pm. At that point she was not told why. Her immediate worry was that
something had happened to her father and that he might have died. She had
never been visited by a social worker at that time of night before.
25)
When the
OOH social worker visited A was reassured it was nothing to do with her
father. She and her carers say she was told that a young boy aged 9, B, was
in need, potentially coming out of hospital that evening and needing 3:1
support. A was asked whether she would help them “resolve the situation” by
moving to a holiday home with her carers for the weekend for three nights
(including that night) returning on Monday. A did not feel she had much
choice but to agree.
26)
It later
turned out that B was not 9 but 17 and that he had damaged the unregulated
placement where he had been staying so badly that he had to be moved out while
it was repaired.
27)
By Monday
16 September, B was still in the Wimborne placement and A was told she couldn’t
go back. She was moved to a different caravan park in Bridport but there was a
point where she didn’t have anywhere to go and she described herself as feeling
homeless.
28)
A then said
that, rather than staying at the second caravan park, she wanted to stay
overnight with her mother before returning to Wimborne on 17 September. This
was agreed on the basis that the carers would be on hand if needed.
29)
However, on
17 September A was told she could not return to Wimborne as B had damaged that
property too and it needed to be repaired. A was worried about the belongings
she had left there, although she was later reassured they had been removed and
stored. A refused to go back to Bridport and asked again to stay with her
mother. There was then an argument between A and her mother as result of which
A contacted Quayside staff to collect her, which they did at about midnight
from a friend’s house.
30)
A came to
court on 20 September when there was a review of her DOLs. There was obvious
dismay and frustration amongst the social workers, A’s guardian, the lawyers
and me, but most importantly A herself, about what had happened to her.
31)
Because of
what had happened A initially objected to continuation of DOLs at the temporary
‘placement’. I pointed out that although what had happened was extremely
regrettable none of the risks that justified the DOLs order had changed. I
think A saw the logic in that and I continued the order.
32)
Despite all
that A was moved on 20 September to a lodge retreat in Wareham, again an
unregulated placement.
33)
I directed
that the Director of Children’s Services for Dorset should write to the court
to explain what had happened. In her letter to me of 24 September the
Director explained that B has complex needs including disabilities and had
self-harmed. He needed a high level of staff support. The damage done by
him meant the property had to be vacated immediately. As this happened late on
a Friday there were limited options. A and B were the only two young people in
unregulated placements using Dorset properties. It was decided (it would seem
by the Director herself) to ask A to move out while repairs were done to the
property B had been in. The Director says that A was told only that a
placement was needed for a young boy who was unwell. No details were given of
age (although my understanding is the staff also believed he was 9) or what
‘unwell’ meant. A was reassured she would still be able to do her activities
such as horse-riding.
34)
A was given
an opportunity to meet with the service manager to discuss what had happened
but she declined. In the event repairs took longer than expected.
35)
On 24
September A resumed telephone contact with her mother. It did not go well.
A became angry and dysregulated. She kicked a door and said (inaccurately)
that she had taken an overdose of Paracetamol and made threats to harm
herself. As a result the manager at the retreat required A and her carers to
leave.
36)
So, on 25
September, there was yet another move to a caravan park near Weymouth. A could
not stay there beyond Monday 30 September. At the time of the hearing on that
date A was due to move to a lodge at yet another holiday park in Weymouth with
a firm promise given to her and me that she would be able to move back to the Wimborne
placement on 2 October.
37)
A did not
attend that hearing. A’s solicitor, Ms Cowlard, told me she couldn’t see the
point. Who could disagree?
38)
I continued
the DOLs order in respect of the lodge placement for two days and then the
Wimborne placement from 2 October (neither I nor anybody else could see any
objection to anticipating the move and making a two-stage order rather than
having to bring it back for review yet again).
39)
The team
manager told me that they are optimistic that a permanent residential placement
with Cambian will be found for A shortly.
40)
I tell this
story simply to highlight the resource issues that local authorities face
looking after young vulnerable people at risk of harm. For A the consequences
have been:
a)
no residential placement or any sense of permanence or stability;
b)
by my count, excluding the initial foster placements, 10 placements over
the course of a year, all bar two of them unregulated, and lasting from a few
months to a few days;
c)
still no formal education;
d)
no real chance to address the things Dr Jefferis was talking about in
his report;
e)
a situation within which A stayed with her mother in an unplanned way
and there was an argument between them which will not have helped their
relationship;
f)
break down in trust between A and the professionals (however hard they
might be working to support her).
41)
It is my
experience in Dorset that the number of vulnerable young people who need to be
looked after or otherwise supported by the local authority is increasing.
There are growing concerns around child sexual exploitation, County Lines and
other forms of criminal exploitation as risks for these young people. The need
for regulated placements is likely to increase. Social workers work
tirelessly (and some silly hours) trying to find placements. When they turn up
they are seized upon. Sometimes it has taken so long and trust has so broken
down that it can be difficult to move young people on.
42)
The
problems are huge. That is why I have told A’s story.
