London Borough of Sutton v X (‘the Mother’)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mrs Justice Judd,Mrs Justice Judd DBE |
| Judgment Date | 10 July 2020 |
| Neutral Citation | [2020] EWHC 1827 (Fam) |
| Docket Number | Case No: FD20P00367 |
| Date | 10 July 2020 |
| Court | Family Division |
[2020] EWHC 1827 (Fam)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
THE HONOURABLE Mrs Justice Judd DBE
Case No: FD20P00367
and
and
Ms Morgan QC and Mr. Barnes (instructed by the South London Legal Partnership) for the local authority
Mr. Momtaz QC and Mr. Butterfield (instructed by Heald Nickinson Solicitors) for the mother
Ms King QC and Mr. Stevenson (instructed by McMillan Williams Solicitors) for the father
Ms Fottrell QC and Ms Gartland (instructed by TV Edwards Solicitors) for Z
Mr Holborn (instructed by the GLD) for the Secretary of State for Education (in attendance on 29 th June 2020)
Ms Longmore on behalf of the Children's Commissioner (in attendance on 1 st July 2020)
Hearing dates: 29 th June and 1 st July 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.
THE HONOURABLE Mrs Justice Judd DBE
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.
Introduction
This is an application by the local authority for an order under the inherent jurisdiction for a deprivation of liberty authorisation. The case came before me in the urgent applications list last week. The situation is so pressing that another hearing was arranged on Monday morning, 29 th June, and I give this short judgment on 1 st July.
Background
This is a very troubling case concerning a young person (Z) who is just thirteen years old. Until last October Z was living at home with the mother and father. Z came to the attention of the local authority as a result of absconding from school, and also failing to return home.
Matters quickly escalated, and Z needed to be accommodated by the local authority. Three placements broke down because it was impossible to meet Z's needs or to manage the behaviour associated with those needs. It is not necessary here to detail that behaviour but only to record that it included serious actual and threatened physical harm to others, self harm, and damage to property. The seriousness of the situations arising had led to involvement by the police. At one point Z was handcuffed to the bed.
Unsurprisingly, the local authority commenced care proceedings and an interim care order was made on 14th November together with a secure accommodation order which was renewed on 9 th December. Z was placed at a Secure Unit (‘the Unit’) and remains there to date.
On 5 th March the Secure Accommodation order was extended by His Honour Judge Atkins for a period of 6 months until 5 th September. That order remains in force. I note it was made on the grounds that the child had a history of absconding and that if Z did abscond was likely to suffer significant harm. The order was unopposed by the parents and supported by Z's guardian.
Hopes that Z's presentation would improve in the secure environment of the Unit have sadly not been borne out. If anything Z's behaviour has escalated. Again it is not necessary to recite the detail here but rather to record that the episodes involving actual and threatened physical harm both in relation to self harm and harm to others have been at a more serious level than those referred to above at paragraph 3. Managing Z's needs has also become more difficult and it is a matter of real concern that on one occasion when restraint was required, Z sustained physical injury requiring hospital treatment as a result. Another consequence of the escalating situation is that Z had not been able to have the opportunity to spend time with peers at the unit
This is a really troubling situation for such a young child. Z has been assessed by Dr T, a Consultant Clinical Psychologist, and also by a Consultant Psychiatrist, but it is not considered that Z is suffering from a mental illness. The underlying reasons for Z's extremely dysregulated behaviour are unknown, but it may well be due to some sort of trauma, characterised as developmental trauma. Z has intrusive thoughts, hyperarousal, and avoidant behaviour.
Throughout the time at the Unit, Z has expressed a wish not to have contact with the parents.
On 27 th May, the Unit gave notice to the local authority that they wished to terminate the placement as they did not consider they were able to meet Z's needs or to keep Z safe.
Since that time the local authority has made very extensive searches to find a suitable secure placement for Z. Over 30 institutions have been approached (including in Scotland) via a central agency, but despite daily calls and updates, nothing is available. It is said that there are some 40 children awaiting secure placements at the current time. The local authority has not confined itself to regulated secure accommodation but has also enquired with unregulated homes, to which they would propose adding a suitable support package. Nothing has borne fruit.
Local authority proposals
The end of the placement should have come about by last week, 24 th June, but the Unit has permitted an extension of a few days. This has now almost come to an end. The local authority has come to the conclusion that the only possible contingency plan is to place Z in a council home rented, by them, together with four members of staff who are available to care for and contain Z at all times. The restrictions that the local authority ask the court to sanction are set out in the statement of the assistant team manager, and further in a local authority document filed by counsel on 30 th June. The proposal is that Z is not allowed out at all, save for appointments when there will be an escort of three staff. Z is to be locked into a bedroom at night, and the house will be locked at all times. Z will be stripped of all loose items, and restrained in the event of attempted self-harm, attempts to harm others, or to escape. All furniture within each room will be secured to the floor or wall.
There is no doubt that these are draconian restrictions, and that this can be no more than a holding position until a suitable placement becomes available. There is no provision here for education or therapeutic support, although a plan is to be drawn up in the next four weeks. The local authority does not pretend that this proposal is anything approaching ideal for Z, but they find themselves simply unable to identify any other placement.
The parents are understandably extremely concerned about Z, and how nothing on offer from the local authority has seemed to improve Z's presentation over a lengthy period of secure accommodation – now seven months. They have pointed out through counsel that the present plan, as approved by the Guardian, constitutes an even greater deprivation of liberty than originally set out. Through counsel they have applied to discharge the interim care order and for Z to come back home.
The Guardian has filed a detailed analysis and a position statement. She is clear that a secure placement is necessary to keep Z safe, and that there is a requirement for physical and emotional containment before any meaningful trauma focussed therapy can begin. She is very firmly of the view that Z's needs are far beyond the parents' ability at this moment and that they would not be able to keep Z safe or ensure the safety of others. She set out a number of gaps that she believes are in the contingency care plan which she asked to be addressed. They are practical ones, but hugely important, such as how the property itself will be kept fully secure, and what will happen if, for example there are staff shortages. Following on from her request, she has been taken on a virtual tour of the property, and has had time to discuss and consider the practical details of the plan with the social work team. In her most recent position statement she has stated that she considers the present plan to be sufficiently safe and secure.
Before the hearing started I spoke to Z over the phone via BT meet me. Z expressed a wish for life to return to being as normal as soon as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Re T (A Child)
...[2017] Fam 80; [2016] 3 WLR 1718; [2017] 2 FLR 1717Z (A Child) (Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards: Lack of Secure Placement), In re [2020] EWHC 1827 (Fam); [2021] 1 FLR 347Z County Council v M [2019] EWFC B72APPEAL from the Court of AppealBy an application notice the local authority applied......
-
South Tyneside Council v MT
...few weeks later in Dorset Council v E [2020] EWHC 1098 (Fam), and Judd J similarly in Re Z (A Child: DOLS: Lack of Secure Placement) [2020] EWHC 1827 (Fam). 86 The problem encountered by the local authority in this case, as I mentioned in Re S (Child in Care: Unregistered Placement) and at......
-
Lancashire County Council v G
...no such placements are available because there simply are not enough of them.” 56 In Z (A Child: DOLS: Lack of Secure Placement) [2020] EWHC 1827 (Fam) at [23] Judd J, expressing significant misgivings about the deprivation of liberty order she felt compelled to make in the absence of secu......
-
A Local Authority v M
...case makes it even more urgent and serious a case than other comparable cases such as Re Z (A Child-DOLS Lack of Secure Placement) [2020] EWHC 1827 (Fam) and the series of decisions of Macdonald J including but not limited to Lancashire v G (Unavailability of Secure Accommodation) [2020] ......