[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges)
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges) >> J (A Child : interim care order : secure accommodation order) [2015] EWFC B213 (20 October 2015) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2015/B213.html Cite as: [2015] EWFC B213

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE FAMILY COURT
SITTING AT NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE

IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN ACT 1989
AND IN THE MATTER OF: J (A CHILD)

		The Law Courts The Quayside Newcastle-upon-Tyne NE1 3LA
		20th October 2015

[The quality of the recording was poor; the transcriber has endeavoured to provide as accurate a transcript as possible.]

HIS HONOUR JUDGE FREEDMAN:

1. This is an application brought by Gateshead Council for an interim care order and a secure accommodation order in relation to A, who is 15 years of age, having been born on 5^th January 2000. To make it plain for the record, the matter came before me on Friday of last week when the Guardian had not been notified of the application. The mother attended. The application had to be adjourned for a number of reasons, the first of which was that there was no place available in a secure unit should the court make an order, and secondly, it was necessary for the guardian to make further enquiries and to consider further whether she would be able to support the application. In the event, the Guardian, having looked at the evidence, particularly the risk assessments undertaken by the police, has come to the view that she does support this application.
2. The mother and grandmother, who have both attended today, the mother represented by Mr Hunter, appreciate and accept that A is in dire need of help, support and protection but, for very understandable reasons, are not able to support the application. On the other hand, because of their recognition of what is required here, which I will come to in a moment, they do not actively oppose the making of the order. A himself attended this morning and stayed until about 12.30 when he left the building on the pretext that he was getting a sandwich. He has not returned. He has not answered his phone and I think it is very likely that he has, again for understandable reasons, absconded. Meanwhile, Mr Thornton, who strictly speaking was instructed on behalf of the guardian, has, as it were, been a mouthpiece for A in opposing the application. It has not been necessary to hear oral evidence. The local authority have attended. Jacqueline Delaney, the social worker, sets out in her statement very comprehensively the problems that have faced A in the past, and are likely to in the future. Nobody has sought to cross-examine or challenge what Jacqueline Delaney says.
3. What I wish to do is summarise briefly the reasons why this application has been brought. A is somebody who has over several months now, if not longer than that, been involved in drug-taking, not simply taking drugs, but he has been buying quantities of drugs and, as I understand it, he probably has been selling as well. Whatever be the position, on three separate occasions, he has taken overdoses of drugs leading to hospitalisation. That in itself is a major cause of concern but the problems associated with connection with drugs does not cease there because he is in debt, as I understand it, to purveyors of drugs in this city and in Gateshead and they are in particular a family, who do not need to be named, well-known in the criminal community and well-known to the police, who use criminal tactics to secure repayment of debt: intimidation, threats and violence.
4. Unhappily, A himself has been on the receiving end of their physical attacks. I mention but two incidents. On 26^th September when A was living with his maternal grandmother, five men attended the home. Fortunately, the grandmother was able to press the police panic button. That worked on that occasion. There is no guarantee that in the future that will be a sufficient safeguard. In any event, A is vulnerable and exposed and at risk when out and about. He is not going to remain in anybody's house all day, every day, and sure enough on 28^th September when he was in the street a group of four men attacked him, causing him to suffer a fracture to his hand and extensive bruising.
5. The other aspect of the drug abuse is the effect that it has on A. He becomes manic and out of control when he takes too many drugs and behaves in an uncontrollable manner For example, on 3^rd October in a paranoid state he damaged his grandmother's home and he also assaulted his uncle because he was intoxicated with drugs. He has on occasions absconded and flits between his mother's house and his grandmother's house. More recently, he has been with his grandmother but he has been found wandering the streets in the early hours of the morning under the influence of drugs. He is plainly a vulnerable young man at substantial risk. Despite the support which the local authority has endeavoured to give, unhappily the problems have not diminished but, to the contrary, they have escalated.
6. It is said on A's behalf that there are now positive things in his life, which will prevent him from engaging in drug-taking and which will protect him. In particular, he was made the subject of a referral order on Friday and he is going to be working weekly with his youth worker with whom he said he has a good relationship. He has also enrolled on an anti-drugs scheme and it is said that he will participate in that on a daily basis and that should keep him busy. I am sure all of that is positive but it does not satisfy this court that those steps are sufficient to protect A from the very real threats of harm, both physically and psychologically, which are posed at the present time.
7. This is a sad case. No court likes to make secure accommodation orders if it can be possibly avoided, particularly not for a 15-year-old vulnerable young man who has a loving family and who are willing to look after him if they possibly can. I should just pause to mention that A has a 4-year-old sister, B, who, because of the contacts he has in the criminal world is potentially at risk, as well as other members of the family. I am satisfied, looking at section 25 of the Children Act 1989 that if A was kept in any accommodation other than secure accommodation he is likely to be at risk of injury from other persons, and he is likely also to injure himself: injure himself because of taking overdoses of drugs and becoming manic even if he does not get to the point of overdosing, injury from other persons because he is in debt, known to the criminal community and recent events show that they will stop at nothing to try and recover drug debts.
8. I am therefore satisfied that the relevant criteria for keeping A in secure accommodation are satisfied here. A has been represented and submissions have been made on his behalf, so that subsection 6 of section 25 is satisfied. He has a history of absconding and he is likely to abscond in the future, if not kept in secure accommodation. If he absconds, he is likely to suffer significant harm. I am also satisfied that there is now a suitable placement. It has been very difficult for the local authority to secure that placement. There is a bed available at accommodation A in location B. In order to put into effect that secure accommodation order and to regulate contact in the future, it seems to me entirely appropriate that there should also be an interim care order. Again, the threshold criteria are satisfied. Unless an interim care order is made, A is exposed to an immediate risk of serious harm. Therefore, it is appropriate that that order should be made as well. Unhappily, the consequence of A leaving court at half past twelve means that there will have to be police involvement to pick him up. That, I hope, will be handled in as sensitive a way as possible. There is transport now available to take A to location B.
9. The order is limited in duration. It is for one of three months. Having said that, it can be much shorter if A settles down and demonstrates a willingness to change and the local authority feel that the period of time in secure accommodation has been sufficient to safeguard his welfare but that will be for others to judge in the fullness of time. What is absolutely clear is that there can be no extension of the three-month period without the matter being reviewed by the court with judicial intervention and it would not be a rubber stamping process at all. It would be looked at critically if such an application were made. Meanwhile, the local authority is of course anxious to ensure family contact is maintained. In the first instance, I endorse the plan that there should not be direct contact until such time as A has had an opportunity to settle in. Telephone contact or Skype contact would be appropriate and within a relatively short period of time I hope that it is possible for the mother and the grandmother to visit A and have direct contact. So, the orders that I make are an interim care order and an order that he be looked after in secure accommodation for three months