England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY DIVISION
CANTERBURY DISTRICT REGISTRY

		The Law Courts Chaucer Road Canterbury CT1 1ZA
		17/01/2018

HIS HONOUR JUDGE SCARRATT :

1. This is the case of Kent County Council v DC and RK and B, case number ME17C01955. This judgment concerns B, yet another young person who has fallen into a gap in the system created by the serious shortage of secure accommodation required to keep him safe. I do not intend to go into the details of B's case, save to say this, that in the autumn of last year he was placed in Kent at a residential establishment. He was then moved to another residential establishment in Northampton. That residential establishment gave notice to terminate the placement because of B's behaviour.
2. Over Christmas B's behaviour deteriorated significantly and the placement informed the local authority that they were unable to accommodate B any longer. B was moved to a temporary placement in Kent in very early January, infact on 3^rd January. He was then moved to a secure placement in Scotland on 8^th January 2018 and on that date the local authority submitted its application for a secure order. That order was granted by Her Honour Judge Lazarus earlier this week. I am continuing the order today until 7^th March when the matter will come back to court when I will deal with an issues resolution hearing or early final hearing.
3. The fact of the matter is this: that B is suffering racial abuse at the establishment in Scotland. His mother is very concerned about that and, indeed, earlier this morning I spoke to B at that establishment in Scotland and he told me precisely what words and names he was being called. He wants to be nearer to Kent where his mother lives. His father lives in Jamaica and part of the assessment process is in relation to whether B should live with his father in Jamaica but that is for another day. Today I have been literally at my wit's end trying to find for B a suitable secure accommodation place in this country, not in Scotland, and either in this county of Kent or in the south-east, anywhere nearer his home and his mother. It has proved impossible.
4. I am very grateful to the local authority for the hard work that the social worker has put in in establishing what facilities are available. I am told that today, 17^th January 2018, there are 22 children in England and Wales looking for secure accommodation. One vacancy is available at an establishment in Merseyside but that is not open to B for reasons that I understand and have been explained to me. I am told by the local authority that in the last few days there have been three vacancies in various parts of the kingdom but that these vacancies have been taken up immediately.
5. I am concerned very much that B is forced to live many hundreds of miles from his home where he would see more of his mother. I am even more concerned about the fact that he is suffering the most appalling racial abuse at that place and, indeed, I have asked the supervisor of the secure accommodation in Scotland to ensure absolutely that such racial abuse is stopped immediately but the fact remains that there is a very serious gap in the system created by a very serious shortage of secure accommodation.
6. Restricting the liberty of a child is an extremely serious step and one to be taken only as a last resort and I note the observations of Mr. Justice Hayden in London Borough of Barking and Dagenham v SS [2014] EWHC 4436 (Fam). When it is able to proceed with its application this local authority will, of course, need to establish its case. It has established before me today that B is in need of secure accommodation and I am making that order as I have stated. I accept, as I have said, that every effort that the local authority could make to find a suitable placement has been made and I am grateful for the information I have been given today.
7. As in the case of London Borough of Southwark v F [2017] EWHC 2189 before Hayden J, therefore, there is an impasse in respect of which I am unable to achieve a resolution and I can do no better perhaps than cite the frustration which I share expressed by Mr. Justice Hayden at paragraph 15 of that judgment where he said this:

"Ultimately, the responsibility for this must lie with the Minister of State for Education. I am going to direct that a note of this judgment be provided to her. I have also delivered this judgment in open court because I believe it is genuinely a matter that falls within 'the public interest'. In this I follow the approach of the President of the Family Division only a few weeks ago in the case of Re X (A Child) No 3 [2017] EWHC 2036 (Fam). In that case Sir James Munby set out the submissions of counsel addressing a situation strikingly similar to this. I propose to incorporate those here:

'The latest position statement prepared by Mr Jones is dated 28 July 2017. In the course of his submissions he said this:

A central concern in this case, which cannot be ignored, is not only the complete inadequacy in respect of available child and adolescent mental health placement provisions, but also the apparent lack of availability of any suitable temporary placements.

To say the current situation in England and Wales for children with X's… high level of needs is of concern is perhaps an understatement. This is a child who is subject to a care order and who is accordingly owed support by the local authority pursuant to its duties to her as a looked after child. This is also a child who has significant mental health and emotional issues, which make her behaviours both dangerous and uncontrollable. More than this, she is highly vulnerable. Despite all of these factors, she has been placed in a situation where weeks and months have gone by with there being no placement available for her countrywide … The provisions for placement of children and adolescents requiring assessment and treatment for mental health issues within a restrictive, clinical environment is worryingly inadequate. One has to question what would have happened in this case had X not received a criminal sentence? Given the level of her behaviours, where would she have been placed? What provider would have accepted her given that secure units were unwilling to do so prior to her receiving a custodial sentence?'

The President, of course, did not even consider that even these remarks went far enough. He added the following comments to which nothing need or indeed can be added:

'I agree with every word of that. My only caveat is that Mr Jones' language is perhaps unduly moderate. The lack of proper provision for X – and, one fears, too many like her – is an outrage.'"

8. As I have said, in this matter I am at my wit's end to do what is best for B. It is an outage that no secure placement can be found in Kent or more local to Kent. I was impressed with my conversation with B this morning which lasted about 20 minutes. He wants to be nearer home, he understands he has difficulties and he understands that the court has a job to do.
9. I too agree with the President of the Family Division that the state of affairs in respect of secure accommodation is an outrage. I will deal outside the scope of this public judgment with the next steps that can be taken in this case, indeed I have already given directions and counsel for the local authority has undertaken to ensure that the Secretary of State for Education receives a copy of the note of this judgment.
10. I refer to the previous authorities in the hope that at least the Secretary of State may take some action to see what can be done for these children who, through no fault of their own, find themselves in these difficult and really quite dreadful circumstances. That is all I intend to say.
(For proceedings after judgment see separate transcript)