Lancashire County Council v G

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeMr Justice MacDonald
Judgment Date26 October 2020
Neutral Citation[2020] EWHC 2828 (Fam)
Date26 October 2020
Docket NumberCase No: PR20C01113 / PPR20C000547
CourtFamily Division
Between:
Lancashire County Council
Applicant
and
G
First Respondent

and

N
Second Respondent

and

NHS England and Lancashire and South Cumbria NHS Foundation Trust
Interveners

[2020] EWHC 2828 (Fam)

Before:

THE HONOURABLE Mr Justice MacDonald

Case No: PR20C01113 / PPR20C000547

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

FAMILY DIVISION

Sitting Remotely

Ms Louise Boardman (instructed by Lancashire County Council) for the Applicant

Mr Michael Jones (instructed by Roland Robinson and Fenton) for the First Respondent

The Second Respondent did not appear and was not represented

Mr Adam Fullwood (instructed by Hill Dickinson LLP) for the Interveners

Hearing dates: 23 October 2020

Approved Judgment

I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.

This judgment was delivered in private. The Judge has given permission for this anonymised version of the judgment (and any of the facts and matters contained in it) to be published on condition always that the names and the addresses of the parties and the children must not be published. For the avoidance of doubt, the strict prohibition on publishing the names and addresses of the parties and the children will continue to apply where that information has been obtained by using the contents of this judgment to discover information already in the public domain. All persons, including representatives of the media, must ensure that these conditions are strictly complied with. Failure to do so will be a contempt of court.

Mr Justice MacDonald

INTRODUCTION

1

The maxim that the measure of a society can be obtained from how that society treats its most vulnerable members has been expressed in many different ways, and in many different contexts over time. In relation to children, it was perhaps most eloquently and most memorably expressed as “there can be no keener revelation of a society's soul than the way in which it treats its children” (Nelson Mandela, 8 May 1995).

2

In this case, I am concerned with the welfare of G, born in 2004 and now 16 years old. The local authority, Lancashire County Council, has made two applications with respect to G. On 28 August 2020 the local authority applied for an order under the inherent jurisdiction authorising the deprivation of G's liberty. On 7 October 2020, the local authority applied for a secure accommodation order pursuant to s.25 of the Children Act 1989. The local authority is represented by Ms Louise Boardman of counsel.

3

G's interests acts in these proceedings through her highly experienced Children's Guardian, Gemma Howarth, represented by Mr Michael Jones of counsel. G's mother, N, does not appear and is not represented. G's father is deceased.

4

Also appearing before the court this morning is Mr Adam Fullwood of counsel on behalf of both NHS England and Lancashire and South Cumbria NHS Foundation Trust in circumstances where G is currently admitted to an adult mental health ward (due to a lack of CAMHS psychiatric intensive care beds) and is due to be the subject of a discharge meeting at 10.30am this morning. The court is grateful to NHS England and to the Lancashire and South Cumbria NHS Foundation Trust for seeking to appear before the court this morning with a view to assisting both the court and the parties.

5

As of this morning, 23 October 2020, the local authority contend that G is in urgent need of a secure placement. As of this morning, no such placement is available for G anywhere in the United Kingdom. In the alternative, the local authority seek to place G in a regulated non-secure placement under the auspices of an order authorising the deprivation of her liberty. Once again, as of this morning, no such placement is available for G anywhere in the United Kingdom. As I have stated, there is no CAMHS psychiatric bed available for her and, in any event, the court has been this morning provided with a report from G's treating clinicians confirming that G does not meet the criteria for continued detention under the mental health legislation.

6

The only placement currently available to G when discharged from the adult psychiatric ward is an unregulated placement that has already informed the local authority that it is not prepared to apply to OFSTED for registration. By reason of the fact that this placement was only identified very shortly before this hearing, the precise reasons for this are unclear, as is the manner that the placement will seek to apply the regulatory framework applicable to secure accommodation orders, as the authorities make clear it must, should the court authorise the deprivation of G's liberty. Within this context, the local authority finds itself compelled to advance this placement as being the only option available to safeguard G's welfare. The Children's Guardian is unable to give her support to G being placed in this placement under the auspices of an order depriving G of her liberty, albeit that she recognises that this is, in reality, the only option currently available for G.

7

In the foregoing circumstances G, a vulnerable young woman with multifaceted difficulties and at high risk of serious self-harm or suicide who remains inappropriately placed on an adult mental health ward will, if discharged from her current detention under s.2 of the Mental Health Act 1983 at some point today, have nowhere to go unless the court authorises the deprivation of her liberty at an unregistered placement that has stated its intention not to seek registration and which the Children's Guardian does not feel able to endorse as being in her best interests.

8

The stark choice thus faced by the court is to refuse to authorise the deprivation of G's liberty in an unregistered placement, which will result in her discharge into the community where she will almost certainly cause herself possibly fatal harm, or to authorise the deprivation of G's liberty in an unregistered placement that all parties agree is sub-optimal from the perspective of her welfare because that unregulated placement is, quite simply, the only option available.

BACKGROUND

9

The background to this matter is one that is now depressingly familiar to the Family Division of the High Court.

10

On 20 April 2010 the Court granted a care order in respect of G pursuant to Part IV of the Children Act 1989 and approved the local authority's final care plan for G to continue to be placed in foster care with her siblings. This plan was implemented. G remained with her foster carers from the age of 4 to the age of 16.

11

Sadly, since January of this year, G has been the subject of some twenty in-patient hospital admissions arising out of the risk she poses to herself by reason of her self—harming behaviours and suicidal ideation. Within this context, G continues to demonstrate high risk behaviours, which behaviours include ligatures, cutting and refusing water to the point where she requires medical attention. G reports to hearing voices and has a diagnosis of PTSD.

12

On 8 May 2020 G was detained under section 2 of the Mental Health Act and remained detained for 28 days under assessment. Upon discharge, G was placed in a residential placement. In this placement she was violent and aggressive to staff members and caused damage to property. As at 17 August 2020 G had written nine letters stating she wanted to kill herself. The Mental Health Team attended the placement and tried to assess G but she would not engage. The assessment of the Mental Health Team was that G did not meet the criteria for a Tier Four bed and considered that the last two admissions had not been productive for G. On 17 August 2020, after the Mental Health Team had left, G assaulted staff, damaged property and ran from the placement threatening to kill herself.

13

On 24 August 2020, G knocked at the staff door and collapsed with a ligature around her neck. She reportedly had blue lips and was cold to touch. The ligature had to be cut off by staff and an ambulance was called. G was taken to hospital and was deemed medically and mentally able to return to placement. In the evening on 25 August 2020 G tied a long sock around her neck which, again, had to be cut from her neck. G stated she would run away from the home in order to kill herself. As I have noted, on 28 August 2020 the local authority applied for an order under the inherent jurisdiction authorising the deprivation of G's liberty and authorisation for the deprivation of G's liberty was granted by HHJ Bancroft on 28 August 2020.

14

Within the foregoing context, on 24 September 2020 G moved from her then placement to X as a result of her escalating behaviours. X is a specialist mental health in-patient home. Regrettably, the court was not informed of this move and, accordingly there was for a period of time no order in place authorising the deprivation of G's liberty at X. In that placement G continued to display high risk behaviours in the form of self-harm including self-strangulation, cutting and swallowing objects. G has been violent and aggressive towards staff and had to be physically restrained.

15

On 6 October 2020 G stole a lighter from another young person in the home and set fire to her mattress in her bedroom. There was extensive fire and smoke damage in G's room. All in the placement had to be evacuated and whilst they were outside, G and another young person went back into the building and set the curtains on fire. G was subsequently arrested for arson. X gave immediate notice on the placement and will not allow G to return.

16

Following G's release from police custody on 7 October 2020, G was placed at Y, a solo placement. Shortly after G was placed, G assaulted staff, caused damage to property and assaulted police officers.

17

Within the foregoing factual context the local authority made an application...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council v W
    • United Kingdom
    • Family Division
    • 14 July 2021
    ...the submission of Mr Jones that whilst the arrangements in cases such as Lancashire v G (Unavailability of Secure Accommodation) [2020] EWHC 2828 (Fam) or Tameside MBC v L (Unavailability of Regulated Therapeutic Placement) [2021] EWHC 1814 (Fam) were sub-optimal, and in certain respects ......
  • Re T (A Child)
    • United Kingdom
    • Supreme Court
    • 1 January 2021
    ...(2021) 74 EHRR 6, ECtHR (GC)L (An Infant), In re [1968] P 119; [1967] 3 WLR 1645; [1968] 1 All ER 20, CALancashire County Council v G [2020] EWHC 2828 (Fam); [2021] 2 FLR 34Lancashire County Council v G [2021] EWHC 244 (Fam)Osman v United Kingdom (Application No 23452/94) (1998) 29 EHRR 245......
  • Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council v C
    • United Kingdom
    • Family Division
    • 5 July 2021
    ...principles underpinning the best interests principles are at risk of being undermined in the way this court identified in Lancashire County Council v G (No. 1) [2020] EWHC 2828 (Fam) and subsequent decisions in those still ongoing 34 Within this context, Mr Carey however, submits that the ......
  • The Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Lambeth v L (A Child by His Children's Guardian)
    • United Kingdom
    • Family Division
    • 14 December 2020
    ...previous hearing.” DISCUSSION 20 I have recently had cause to set out, in Lancashire v G (Unavailability of Secure Accommodation) [2020] EWHC 2828 (Fam) at [29] to [34], the reasons why the High Court is required, at present, to consider the use of deprivation of liberty orders made under ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT