A Local Authority v D and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr. Justice Keehan |
| Judgment Date | 28 July 2015 |
| Neutral Citation | [2015] EWHC 3125 (Fam) |
| Court | Family Division |
| Date | 28 July 2015 |
| Docket Number | Case No. CV15C00529 |
[2015] EWHC 3125 (Fam)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Mr. Justice Keehan
(In Private)
Case No. CV15C00529
Mr. J. Tindal (instructed by the Local Authority Legal Department) appeared on behalf of the Applicant.
Ms. K. Danton appeared on behalf of the First Respondent.
Ms. C. Dillon appeared on behalf of the Second Respondent.
Mr. N. Goodwin QC (instructed by Brethertons LLP) appeared on behalf of the Third and Fourth Respondents.
Introduction
In this matter, I am concerned with one child, AB, who is 14 years of age. He currently resides at X children's home under the auspices of an interim care order. The parties are agreed that the circumstances in which AB lives at that establishment amount to a deprivation of his liberty.
AB's mother is D and his father is S. They are respondents to the care proceedings and to this application for permission by the local authority to seek to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court to authorise AB's placement. AB has a sister, R, who is 13 years of age. R is the subject of an interim care order and lives with foster carers.
There is a large measure of agreement between the parties on the relevant factual matrix and the legal principles applicable to the issues I am asked to determine, namely:
(1) Whether AB is deprived of his liberty at X.
(2) If so, are the parents and/or the local authority entitled to consent to the same?
(3) If not, whether the court will sanction the deprivation of liberty and, if so, under what provision, power or jurisdiction?
(4) Whether it would be appropriate to give guidance on the approach to, and conduct of, similar cases.
Background
The family have been known to social services since 2000. The mother left the family home in 2005 and has not since assumed the care of either AB or R. She accepts that, since then, she has had limited and inconsistent involvement in the children's lives. She has been in a relationship with a registered sex offender, from 2008, which continues. The mother and her partner deny that he inappropriately touched R in April 2008. The local authority has prepared a risk assessment as a prelude to the possible reintroduction of contact between R and her mother.
The mother has recently been diagnosed by Dr. Gillette, a psychologist, as "on the cusp" of having a learning disability and, although she does have capacity to conduct litigation, she would need support in any assessment process. Dr. Gillette assessed the father as presenting with overall borderline low average intellectual functioning, with weaknesses in his working memory, processing speed and perceptual reasoning.
Upon the mother's departure, the father became the children's primary carer. Over the years, however, there have been issues about the physical condition of the home and the father's supervision of the children. On 5 November 2013, the father hit AB with a broom, for which he received a caution. This incident led to AB being removed from the home, to reside in Y House for a short period, pursuant to the provisions of s.20 of the Children Act 1989. R was placed with a paternal aunt.
On 26 November 2013, AB and R were made the subjects of child protection plans under the categories of neglect and emotional abuse, respectively.
AB moved from Y House to foster carers. Unfortunately, this placement was short-lived because of AB's sexualised behaviour. He moved back to Y House on 6 December 2013 and then moved to X on 10 December, where he remains placed to date.
R returned to her father's care on 23 February 2014. There continued to be concerns about the father's supervision of R and support was provided to him. He continued to have contact with AB, which was progressing well, and, by early 2015, the contact had moved to unsupervised contact, then, moved into the community and then to the family home. A rehabilitation plan was agreed for AB to move to live with his father and he was to have his first overnight stay at the family home on 3 April 2015.
On 1 April, however, the father was arrested on suspicion of downloading indecent images of children. He was granted bail, one condition of which was that he was not permitted to have unsupervised contact with any person under the age of 18 years. R was accordingly placed in care, initially under a police protection order, and, subsequently, pursuant to a s.20 Children Act agreement.
On 5 May 2015, the local authority made applications for care orders in respect of AB and R. They were made the subjects of interim care orders on 1 June 2015. On the same date, the issue of AB's deprivation of liberty was transferred to the High Court; it came before me for directions on 2 June.
AB
AB has a moderate severe learning disability and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, for which he is prescribed medication. He has a statement of special educational needs and attends a special school at Z School. He attends the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service, where he is under the care of Dr. Allington Smith.
AB's circumstances at X are set out in the statement of his allocated social worker, Ms. MN, of 10 June 2015. There are always three staff on duty during the day and two at night for the three residents, including AB. Whilst AB is not on one-to-one supervision within the unit and may be left unsupervised for short periods, the behaviour plan states:
"Staff must be aware of where AB is at all times. AB should be checked regularly. Staff must be authorised to work alone with AB. AB must never be left alone with another resident."
He is also under observations every 15 minutes. He takes his medication under supervision. AB is not allowed to leave the unit, e.g. to go to school, unaccompanied and is closely supervised when out of the unit. On public transport, he is watched at all times. If he behaves badly when out, and despite warnings, he continues to behave badly, he must be immediately returned to the placement. If he were to leave the placement unaccompanied, staff would call social services and the police to assist with his return. The front door is locked at night and, if AB leaves his room, staff must redirect him back to his room unless he wants a drink or to go to the toilet. The social worker concluded:
"AB is under the continuous supervision of staff, who are aware of his whereabouts at all times. AB is residing in a care setting, where he is not free to leave unsupervised. He is also not able to contact his family independently. All behaviour that is perceived to be challenging is managed with verbal redirection. AB is also on an ongoing prescription of sedative medication which alters his behaviour and is a form of chemical restraint."
The children's guardian observed:
"AB is not able to leave the placement without a worker accompanying him. This is due to AB's vulnerabilities in terms of identifying risk and keeping him safe and the restrictions are necessary and proportionate for ensuring AB's safety, welfare and development, as they would be for any other child of his age with his level of need."
The behaviour plan provides, in part, that:
(1) Staff must be aware of where AB is at all times. AB should be checked regularly. Staff must be authorised to work alone with AB. AB must never be left alone with another resident.
(2) Staff should only allow AB to undertake activities outside the unit if his behaviour warrants it. If staff are in doubt about taking AB out, due to concerns they may have in terms of his mood or behaviour at that time, they should immediately inform him of this, clearly explaining their reasons to him, highlighting what their expectations are, before this can be accommodated. Before exiting the unit for activities, staff should ensure they have clearly voiced their expectations in terms of his behaviour while out in the local community. If AB displays any negative behaviour while out on an activity, staff should ask him to stop and give him the opportunity to amend his behaviour.
(3) AB is only to be taken on public transport if he is calm and settled. Staff are to be clear with him where they are going and what transport they are getting on with him. Staff are either to sit beside AB or behind him but not in front of him. Staff would be able to see him at all times. AB can hold his travel ticket while out with staff. If his behaviour escalates, then he is to return with staff to the unit. If the staff cannot do this alone, then they are to call the unit and support will be sent if possible. AB is known to occasionally exit his bedroom during the night. In the event of him doing this, staff should, first, identify the reasons for him doing so. If he states he requires either the toilet or a drink, staff must allow him the opportunity of accessing either. Staff must remind him of the time, redirecting him back to his room by encouragement in a firm tone of voice. If AB refuses, staff should ask him again in a firm tone of voice. If he still fails to follow staff directions, staff should positively ignore him but remind him of the time every ten minutes for no more than 30 minutes. If this continues, AB should be informed that a sanction will be issued because of his failure to comply with the request made.
(4) If AB is in his room or the bathroom then staff can leave the room for a couple of minutes. While AB is in the bath, staff can lock the door from the outside and sit outside and check on him visually and verbally during bath time.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Re X (A Child); Re Y (A Child)
...4654 (Fam), Re B (Secure accommodation: Inherent jurisdiction) (No 2) [2013] EWHC 4655 (Fam), Re AB (A Child: deprivation of liberty) [2015] EWHC 3125 (Fam), [2016] 1 WLR 1160, and A Local Authority v S [2015] EWHC 3010 (Fam). 34 It is clear that there are two jurisdictional obstacles that ......
-
D (A Child)
...be fully engaged. In those circumstances, I agree with what Keehan J said in In re AB (A Child) (Deprivation of Liberty: Consent) [2015] EWHC 3125 (Fam), [2016] 1 WLR 1160, para 36 (see further paragraph 111 below): "… the local authority child care review, chaired by an independent reviewi......
-
Re T (A Child)
...ER 652; [2019] 2 FLR 1197A Metropolitan Borough Council v DB [1997] 1 FLR 767AB (A Child) (Deprivation of Liberty: Consent), In re [2015] EWHC 3125 (Fam); [2016] 1 WLR 1160; [2016] 2 FLR 601A-F (Children), In re (No 2) [2018] EWHC 2129 (Fam)C (A Child by his Guardian), In re (No 3) [2016] E......
-
Re A-F (Children)
...way as to provide a valid consent for the purposes of Storck component (b): see In re AB (A Child) (Deprivation of Liberty: Consent) [2015] EWHC 3125 (Fam), [2016] 1 WLR 1160, paras 26–29, 36, considered in Re D (A Child) [2017] EWCA Civ 1695, paras 48, 109–112. ii) Secondly, a foster carer......