Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council v W
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice MacDonald |
| Judgment Date | 14 July 2021 |
| Neutral Citation | [2021] EWHC 1982 (Fam) |
| Docket Number | Case No: MA21C00512 |
| Court | Family Division |
and
and
and
and
[2021] EWHC 1982 (Fam)
THE HONOURABLE Mr Justice MacDonald
Case No: MA21C00512
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Ms Cheetham QC and Mr Philip Martin (instructed by the Borough Solicitor) for the Applicant
The Second Respondent did not attend and was not represented
Mr Michael Jones (instructed by Forbes Solicitors) for the Second Respondent
Mr Callum Brook (instructed by Temperley Taylor LLP) for the Third Respondent
Mr Parishil Patel QC and Ms Sian Davies (instructed by Browne Jacobson) for the Fourth Respondent
Ms Katie Scott (instructed by DAC Beachcroft LLP) for the Fifth Respondent
Hearing dates: 13 July 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.
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in it) to be published on condition always that the names and the addresses of the parties and the children must not be published.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.
INTRODUCTION
In this matter I am concerned with the welfare of Y, born on 7 February 2009 and now aged 12. Y is represented by Mr Callum Brook of counsel through his Children's Guardian. Y has complex medical and behavioural issues. It is possible, although not definitively established, that Y suffers from ADHD and an autistic spectrum disorder. Y has a diagnosis of epilepsy. As will become apparent, Y has demonstrated, and continues to demonstrate challenging, violent and increasingly self-harming behaviour.
In what will be a scenario now depressingly familiar to those in the habit of reading on BAILII judgments given by High Court judges and Deputy High Court judges in cases of this nature, and within the context of acute emotional and behavioural difficulties consequent on past abuse, Y has been assessed as not meeting the relevant criteria for detention under ss. 2 or 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983 as he is not considered to be suffering from a mental disorder. At the same time, the therapeutic treatment within a restrictive clinical environment for acute behavioural and emotional issues arising from past trauma that he does urgently require is simply unavailable.
In the circumstances, Y is currently and inappropriately placed on a clinical ward at the [named hospital], where he has had to be subject to chemical restraint, physical restraint and 5:1 staffing in order to attempt to control his behaviour. At times there have been up to thirteen police officers present on the ward in an effort to control Y' behaviour. That paediatric ward has now had to be shut to new admissions due to the risk presented by Y and parts of the ward have been closed entirely. Other gravely ill children have had to be moved to alternative hospitals across the North West of England and lists of elective surgeries for children in urgent need of such treatment have been cancelled. Nurses and other hospital staff have been injured. Other sick children and their parents have been alarmed and frightened. At present, Y has nowhere else to go.
Within this context, Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council applies for an order authorising the continued deprivation of Y' liberty on the hospital ward, that application having been issued on 6 July 2021. Y is also the subject of care proceedings under Part IV of the Children Act 1989 issued on 1 July 2021. On 8 July 2021, the Designated Family Judge for Greater Manchester, Her Honour Judge Singleton QC, made Y the subject of an interim care order and an interim order authorising the deprivation of his liberty and re-allocated this matter to me for hearing.
The first respondent is Y' mother, W. She has not attended this hearing and is not represented. The second respondent is Y' father, N, represented by Mr Michael Jones of counsel. On 8 July 2021 HHJ Singleton QC joined Wrightington Wigan & Leigh Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust as a party to the proceedings. The Trust is represented by Ms Sian Davies of counsel at the hearing and now by Ms Davies and Mr Parishil Patel of Queen's Counsel. Helpfully, the Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust has also attended this hearing represented by Mr McGough at the hearing and now Ms Katie Scott of counsel. During the hearing I indicated that it was my intention to join the Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust as a party to the proceedings and I have done so.
In determining whether to extend the order authorising the deprivation of Y' liberty on the paediatric ward I have been assisted by reading the court bundle and by the comprehensive written and oral submissions of counsel. In light of the issues raised by this case I reserved judgment overnight and now set out my decision and the reasons for it.
BACKGROUND
Y first became known to the Local Authority in April 2011, following an allegation that the father was misusing drugs and alcohol, leading him to make threats to the mother of the children. It was alleged that those threats comprised statements that the father was going to “gas them, blow the house up and slit the children's throats whilst they are sleeping”. On 13 April 2011 a strategy discussion was held by the local authority and an enquiry under s.47 of the Children Act 1989 initiated. Thereafter, following a Child Protection Case Conference, Y and his siblings were made the subject of Child Protection Plans under the category of emotional abuse.
Between 2011 and 2015 Y spent periods as the subject of a Child Protection Plan and as a Child in Need. On the 21 July 2015, Y became Looked After for the purposes of the Children Act 1989 and was placed into the care of the local authority following the mother giving her agreement to his accommodation pursuant to s.20 of the Children Act 1989. This was as the result of the father's continued alleged substance misuse and the presence of unexplained injuries to the children. Y was found to have grazes and friction burns on his hand. These were thought to be accidental and due to lack of supervision. Whilst Y was in the care of the local authority the father was the subject of a positive PAMS assessment. Within this context, Y was returned to his father's care on the 29 of March 2016.
Earlier this year Y was placed on a further Child Protection Plan under the category of neglect following an allegation that the father had inappropriately physically chastised Y. The issues that lead to this step included:
i) On 25 September 2020, the father was alleged to have said during a conversation at Y' school that “you have to be cruel to be kind”.
ii) On 7 October 2020, Y informed school staff that he had not eaten for three days and was hungry. The father stated that he had run out of money.
iii) On 15 December 2020, the school made a referral to children's services after Y had not been at school for two days. During a home visit, the father stated he had hit Y and thereafter had not had sight of him.
Following further concerns that Y's medical and basic needs were not being met at home, that the father was displaying a lack of engagement with professionals, that the home conditions were poor and concerns with respect to the father's mental health, the local authority held a Legal Planning Meeting. In particular, that meeting considered the following issues:
i) The father was said to have a diagnosis of ADHD (the father disputes this) but does not take medication for this condition as he asserted that he did not believe in medicating his illness.
ii) The father was alleged to have regularly used alcohol and cannabis. The father was reported by the mother to go missing for hours when he had consumed alcohol.
iii) The father was alleged to talk openly about his own childhood trauma in front of Y and to re-direct conversations from Y to his own childhood trauma and choices.
iv) Y was noted to have a number of unexplained injuries, including broken fingers, a bruise to the right temple, burnt hair and a cut to his face. On 2 July 2021 Y attended school with a mark to his forehead, approximately 2cm in diameter and a mark to the left side of his mouth.
v) The father was alleged to have failed to administer to Y the medication required to manage Y' ADHD and epilepsy, the latter resulting in Y's seizures re-emerging at school and an ambulance being called. The father was further alleged to have failed to co-operate with appointments designed to remedy the effects of the disruption to Y's medication regime. The father had allegedly refused to sign a safety plan with respect to Y' epilepsy.
vi) Y' school noted that he would attend school in a heightened state (during which he is almost non-verbal), necessitating staff having to physically restrain Y at times to manage his behaviour and the need to allocate staff to him on a 3:1 ratio and to make provision for segregated learning.
vii) Y presented with dangerous behaviours on transport to and from school, putting...
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)
-
Derby City Council v BA
...for authorisation and invite the local authority to present alternative proposals (as this court did in Wigan MBC v W, N & Y [2021] EWHC 1982 (Fam)). Again, in such circumstances, the court may be required to make a very short order (measured in days and not weeks) to hold the ring whilst ......
-
North Yorkshire County Council v C
...that I have set out in a number of recent judgments (see for example Wigan BC v Y (Refusal to Authorise Deprivation of Liberty) [2021] EWHC 1982 (Fam)). I do not consider it necessary to articulate the law in detail. As matters stand, the court may grant an order under its inherent jurisdi......