Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council v C
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice MacDonald |
| Judgment Date | 05 July 2021 |
| Neutral Citation | [2021] EWHC 1814 (Fam) |
| Docket Number | Case No: MA20P00300 |
| Court | Family Division |
and
and
[2021] EWHC 1814 (Fam)
THE HONOURABLE Mr Justice MacDonald
Case No: MA20P00300
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY DIVISION
Sitting Remotely
Mr Matthew Carey (instructed by the Borough Solicitor) for the Applicant
The First and Second Respondents appeared in person
Ms Eleanor Keehan (instructed by AFG Law) for the Third Respondent
Hearing dates: 21 June 2021
Approved Judgment
I direct that no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic. Covid-19 Protocol: This judgment was handed down remotely by circulation to the parties' representatives by email. The date and time for hand-down is deemed to be at 10.30am on 5 July 2021.
INTRODUCTION
In this matter, I am concerned with the welfare of L, who is now 17 years old. The application to further extend an order authorising the deprivation of L's liberty pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction of the court is made by Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council, represented by Mr Matthew Carey of counsel. The application was issued on 4 February 2020. L's mother, C, appears in person, as does L's father, D. L is represented through his Children's Guardian, Emma Gauden, by Ms Eleanor Keehan of counsel.
Certain of the issues raised in this case are currently the subject of consideration by the Supreme Court, from which court judgment is awaited in the appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeal in Re T (A Child) [2018] EWCA Civ 2136. Whilst, ordinarily, this court would defer its decision pending receipt of definitive authority on the issues before it, the current situation for L does not allow for that. In the circumstances, I proceed to decide this matter on the law as it currently stands albeit, as will become apparent, there remain very significant challenges in seeking to do so.
In this case the local authority seeks an extension to the order authorising the deprivation of L's liberty at his current placement. That extension is opposed by L's parents, who seek the implementation of a staged plan that will result in L returning to their full time care. The Children's Guardian is unable to support the extension of the order authorising the deprivation of L's liberty as being in his best interests. This matter was reallocated to me on 28 May 2021 by HHJ Singleton QC and comes before me for a contested hearing.
In determining the application before me I have had the benefit of reading the core bundle, which bundle includes the report of the Children's Guardian, the written submissions of counsel and have had the benefit of hearing oral submissions from Mr Carey, each of the parents and Ms Keehan on behalf of L. Given the issues involved, I reserved judgment for a short period and now set out my decision and the reasons for it.
BACKGROUND
L is the adopted child of the respondent parents. L was removed from his birth mother's care following a history of maternal alcohol abuse, neglect, inconsistent parenting and concerns around sexual abuse. The papers record that, prior to his removal, L was noted to have multiple fingerprint bruising on his body.
L was adopted by the parents with a sibling when he was 4 years old. The report of the Children's Guardian asserts that the matters summarised in the foregoing paragraph were either not shared fully with the parents by, or were minimised by, the placing local authority and that this, combined with limited preparation of the parents with respect to, and their limited experience and understanding of, attachment meant the parents struggled to meet L's needs. During the course of the hearing, the father intimated that the parents will shortly be commencing civil proceedings against the local authority in respect of its alleged failures in this case.
L was referred to Educational Psychology in April 2012 because of concerns about social communication difficulties, emotional vulnerability and his rate of educational progress. In December 2012, L's full scale IQ was assessed to lie on the 5 th centile, with a full scale IQ of 75. On 11 February 2015 the parents attended a post-adoption surgery run by the local authority and reported that L was demonstrating increasingly difficult behaviours, including making threats with a knife, smearing faeces, food hoarding, arson, aggression towards the family pet, sexualised behaviour and sexually harmful behaviours towards fellow pupils and teachers. As time moved on L was also noted to make threats to kill himself and others. L appears increasingly to have had a pre-occupation with violence. The adoption support assessment that took place in February 2015 recommended a full psychological assessment of L and parenting programmes for the parents.
On 4 August 2015 a report from Dr E, Consultant Child and Adolescent Psychiatrist, recommended referral to the FACTS team. On 5 October 2015, Mr F, Consultant Child and Adolescent Psychotherapist, recommended a package of support to include individual work with L and his sibling, therapeutic parenting support for the parents, further assessment of L and a Reducing Anxiety Management Programme (RAMP) for both children. Whilst a number of agencies intervened with respect to L's behaviour, including FCAMHS and FACTS, and a number of assessments were undertaken, it is very difficult to identify what was done at this time to assist L and the family with his escalating behavioural issues, albeit it there is a suggestion that therapy was offered to L but that he declined to engage. A Forensic CAMHS assessment on 28 October 2015 resulted in a recommendation that there be no further involvement from FCAMHS.
In February 2016 L assaulted his parents and in April that year L caused damage to the family home. The parents were noted to be willing, but unable, to provide the advanced and intensive therapeutic parenting required by L. On 14 July 2016 a report from a paediatric nurse specialist recommended a multi-agency approach to address L's difficulties. On 5 December 2016, a report by Mr G identified that L will needed an extensive therapeutic package of support from a placement to address his harmful sexualised behaviour. Mr G made clear that short-term measures should be avoided as long term stability was key to making progress with L's emotional health needs. Again, it is difficult to see what was actually done for L in response to these clear recommendations.
On 18 December 2016 L was provided with accommodation pursuant to s.20 of the Children Act 1989 with his parents' agreement. On 25 January 2017 GMAP (an independent specialist service for children displaying problematic or harmful sexual behaviour) produced an initial assessment report that recommended a therapeutic programme and reiterated that:
“[11.3] In order to receive the therapeutic programme that is likely to yield the quickest and best outcomes for L, he needs to reside in a specialist rehabilitation unit for young people who have attachment problems / disorders and who can manage client group who have a range of his risk behaviours including sexual harm of others. Ideally the placement would be within commuting distance of his parents' home address and would also provide education. Contact between L and his parents and sibling should remain under the direction and assessment of the local authority.
[11.4] The placement should be staffed, or be willing to train staff, in attachment informed care, trauma, parenting with PACE or any other recognised and evidence based therapeutic parenting techniques. It should have low occupancy and high staff ratios. Bedroom door monitoring would also be important.”
GMAP further recommended that multi-agency case planning forums should review the case and the case should be referred to CAMHS for assessment and ongoing oversight. L returned to the care of the parents on 26 January 2017. Subsequently, L did engage in some GMAP therapeutic sessions. L was assessed as being amongst the most concerning young people assessed to date with the AIM2 tool, a tool used to assess the level of risk of sexual harm that may be posed by a young person.
On 7 March 2017 L took an overdose and was assessed at being of significant risk of further overdoses. He also exhibited self-harming behaviours. Care proceedings under Part IV of the Children Act 1989 were issued with respect to L and his sibling and interim care orders were made on 10 March 2017. L was placed in a residential placement. Within those proceedings, Dr A, Chartered and Registered Psychologist, observed as follows (in a passage later cited by Dr Ross) with respect to L's presentation in a report dated 3 July 2017:
“Behaviourally, socially, psychosexually, and emotionally, L presents as having significant difficulties. He can be controlling, challenging, provocative, sexually inappropriate, non-complaint, and oppositional, defiant, and verbally intimidating, as well as physically aggressive. Particularly, in the past L's challenging behaviour has placed both him and others at risks of harm. He has significant difficulties in terms of his emotional regulation and will become aggressive when frustrated, but he has also learned to use negative and intimidating behaviour as a way to try and exert control over other people and his environment…L's interpersonal functioning is highly compromised. L presents as emotionally and interpersonally unstable and has a highly segmented, fragmented, and uncertain sense of self as well as experiencing a wavering sense of identity. As well as lacking skills and resources to regulate himself, L struggles to maintain a cohesive and integrated sense of his identity and his very sense of being is very...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Blackpool Borough Council v HT (a minor by her children's guardian) and Others (an NHS Foundation Trust intervening)
-
Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council v W
...With respect to the relevance of the absence of such a placement to the best interests evaluation to the court, in Tameside MBC v L [2021] EWHC 1814 (Fam) I held as follows: “[71] In circumstances where it is rarely, if ever, the case that a particular welfare option will meet perfectly al......
-
Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council v AM
...which approach demands that the court consider the likely consequences of any order it does or does not make (see Tameside MBC v L [2021] EWHC 1814 (Fam)). 62 Within the context of the foregoing principles, at various points in its judgment the Supreme Court emphasised that the exercise of......
-
A Local Authority v M
...of Secure Accommodation) [2020] EWHC 2828 (Fam), Tameside MBC v L (Unavailability of Regulated Therapeutic Placement) [2021] EWHC 1814 (Fam). 11 The challenges for those who have responsibility for the well-being of young people in finding and/or authorising lawful secure placements is al......