IN THE CENTRAL FAMILY COURT	No. ZC15C00038

First Avenue House
42-49 High Holborn, WC1
Thursday, 16th July 2015

Before:

HER HONOUR JUDGE HARRIS

B E T W E E N :

		LONDON BOROUGH OF X	Applicant

-  and  -

		C	Respondent

_________

Transcribed by BEVERLEY F. NUNNERY & CO.
(a trading name of Opus 2 International Limited)
Official Court Reporters and Audio Transcribers
5 Chancery Lane, London EC4A 1BL
Tel:  020 7831 5627     Fax:  020 7831 7737
info@beverleynunnery.com

_________

MISS M. SAVAGE of counsel appeared on behalf of the London Borough of X.

MR. J. HALL of counsel appeared on behalf of the Mother.

MR. CAMPBELL of counsel appeared on behalf of the Father.

MISS E. HUDSON of counsel appeared on behalf of the Child.
_________

J U D G M E N T
JUDGE HARRIS: 

1	I will give my judgment now in these applications.  I am giving my judgment publically because of a particular issue that I will identify.  I will refer to the child as “C”; I will refer to the mother as “A” or “the mother”; I will refer to the father as “F” or “the father”; I will refer to the maternal grandmother as “M” or “the maternal grandmother”.  There is no reason not to name the professionals.
2	In this case the parties and their representation are as follows.  The London Borough of X is represented by Miss Mai-Ling Savage of counsel; the mother, A, is represented by Mr. Jeremy Hall of counsel; the child herself, C, is represented by Miss Emma Hudson of counsel; the father, F, is represented by Miss Campbell.  The guardian, Miss Lee Falkson, is not represented because, as I understand it, Cafcass have not deemed it necessary for her to have her own representation where there has been a direction for the young person to be separately represented.  

3	I am dealing today with two applications, the first is an application by the London Borough of X for a care order and that application was made on 22nd January 2015.  Secondly, I am dealing with an application made effectively on Monday this week, 13th July, for a secure accommodation order.  I am giving this judgment in public because of the great concern I have about the lack of availability of suitable secure accommodation for the  young person with whom I am dealing and I consider this is a matter of general public concern.  I note in two other judgments which have been placed before me and which have been publicised that a similar problem has arisen. I have also been provided with a link to a BBC article from March of this year.  It seems to me that this is a real and ongoing problem whereby vulnerable young people – and indeed members of the public – are being put at risk and that the wider public need to  made be aware of it.  The two judgments that I have been shown very helpfully by Miss Savage are the cases of Re A (A Child), a judgment in the county court reported on 9th June 2014, case number BB14C00042, and a High Court decision of Bodey J. Re A [2015] EWHC 1709 Fam. 

4	It was the wish of C to be present at this hearing but because of a deterioration in her presentation and an escalation of her behaviours (which I will describe in this judgment), in the event she has not attended court nor would I have thought it appropriate in her current state for her to do so.  She was born on 14th December 2000 and is therefore 14½ years of age.  The father, F, is also not present; he does not in any way disagree with the local authority plan. He has just started a new job, is the main wage earner and  his attendance has not in fact been necessary.

5	The position of the parties. 
	The local authority seeks a full care with a plan to place C in a therapeutic residential unit after her discharge from a secure unit, if I accede to the application for a secure accommodation order.  Prior to the commencement of this hearing the mother was opposed to both aspects of the plan but very realistically she has recognised, in the light of her daughter’s recent behaviours, that she cannot oppose a secure accommodation order, nor does she now put herself forward as a carer for C in the short and probably medium term.  I applaud her recognition of the reality which is that currently she would not have the resources to be able to provide safe and contained care for her daughter.  However, she in no way gives up on her daughter and would wish to a return to her care to be considered in the longer term.

6	The maternal grandmother, M, has also been assessed as a special guardian; that report was negative and the maternal grandmother has not sought to be joined as a party or to challenge that report.  

7	The mother, through Mr. Hall, however, says that the court should not relinquish control over C’s future to the local authority by making a full care order at the conclusion of this hearing.  She submits through him that the court should make further interim care orders and that the final decision should be adjourned to a later date.  I will deal with the arguments in support of that contention later in my judgment.  

8	The other parties, namely the father and the guardian, support the making of a full care order now and the guardian specifically supports the making of a secure accommodation order.  I have not heard that the father opposes such an application.  

9	So far as C herself is concerned, Miss Hudson, as she explained to me, has been put in a very difficult position.  She has not spoken to her client since Monday when it was extremely difficult to obtain coherent instructions because of C’s aroused emotional state but I am clear that C’s wishes throughout, which have been consistent, were to return to the care of her mother, although that was not her position on Monday morning.  In any event, as Miss Hudson accepts, she is not in a position in the absence of instructions, to put forward a coherent proposal to the court.

10	I have read extensively into the two lever arch files, in particular the first bundle.  The assessments in the case have included a pre-proceedings assessment by Y (the X authority in-house multi-disciplinary team), an assessment by the Maudsley not only of C but also of her mother, and of course the assessments of the social worker and the guardian.  There has also been a special guardianship assessment, as I related before, of the maternal grandmother which was negative, as were the assessments of mother in terms of her ability to provide safe care for C. I have heard oral evidence from Dr. Johnston, consultant psychologist and a co-author of a report from the Maudsley, from the social worker, Simon Sharples, and the Guardian. The mother, although intending to give evidence, did not in the end.  I had no difficulty with that because I am quite satisfied that all the points she wished to raise have been ably made on her behalf by Mr. Hall, her counsel.

11. The threshold.  
	I have before me an agreed document setting out the facts which support the final threshold criteria dated 15th July.  That document submits that C was suffering or was likely to suffer significant harm and the harm or likelihood of harm was attributable to C being beyond parental control.  The harm was described as physical and emotional harm, neglect and sexual exploitation and impairment of health and educational development.  I will summarise the facts relied upon.  They include C being at risk of sexual exploitation and being sexually active; C being missing from home and school at unknown locations and in unknown company, putting her at significant risk of physical harm and sexual exploitation; C not being properly supervised as she has been found to be home alone or missing and C herself commenting that she does not at times know where her mother is (I note the mother does not accept that contention; it seems to me to be fully borne out by the documents I have read.); C has been on an eight month referral order for attempting to poison a previous carer with bleach; C has had poor attendance at her educational provision and when she has not been at school her whereabouts have often been unknown (she has already been excluded from mainstream education).  Further, C has had the disruption of a number of moves within the family, both planned and unplanned, and also involving living with the carer to whom I have just referred.  C has demonstrated emotional instability, has sought to be accommodated which requests have been refused by her mother, and there is reference to a particular incident in January when C was becoming violent towards her mother.  There were concerns as she was threatening to self-harm and the police had to handcuff her and take her to hospital, pursuant to s. 136 of the Mental Health Act.  Further, there are regular reports of C using both drugs and alcohol; C was seen to have been visibly inebriated, for example, when found alone at the home on 27th December last year.  The concerns are said to be recurring.  It is said that mother has at times cooperated and worked with social care to address the concerns.  Those are the facts underpinning the threshold. 

11	The background
	I turn now to deal in a relatively short way with the background.  Although Mr. Hall advised me that the mother does not accept a considerable number of the background facts as set out in the very detailed social work statements, given the issues at stake in these proceedings they have not been challenged and it seems to me that many of the facts relied upon – if not most of them – have been verified and are plainly made out.  I will deal with sufficient of the background to give context to the current situation and to my decisions.

12	C first became known to social care in February 2011 when there was a referral from the school.  As the threshold criteria record, she suffered from considerable instability because she moved between family members, in particular her mother, her father (who lives in Brighton) and her maternal grandmother and also moved to live with a carer called Miss S.  This instability was made worse by the conflict which plainly existed between the maternal and paternal sides of the family.  In the summer of 2013 C was living with a carer, Miss S, as I understand it a friend of the family.  Miss S reported that C had attempted to poison her by adding bleach to her drink and obviously in the circumstances she could no longer support C living with her.  C was subsequently charged and in June 2014 was made the subject of an eight month referral order.  The concerns continued after that initial referral.  There was poor school attendance and in December 2014 it was recorded that C had only attended on time 44 percent of the time and had not attended at all for 34 percent of the period in question.  

13	There were ongoing concerns about lack of appropriate supervision.  It is right to say that the mother has always been a single mother and she has recognised, to her credit, that she has not always been able to set appropriate boundaries around her daughter and, indeed, the relationship has been described by various professionals as more like a relationship of siblings than a relationship between mother and child.  The relationship is a mutually loving relationship, I am quite satisfied about that and C has told professionals that she “loves her mother to bits”.  However, it has been characterised by considerable volatility on both sides, leading even to physical assaults perpetrated by C on her mother.  As the threshold criteria reflect, there has been a history of C going missing, sometimes for quite extended periods of time, and it is not known where C has been for many of those occasions.  Further, when she has disappeared she has returned intoxicated or under the influence of substances and the mother now accepts in particular that C has been using what was a legal high called Black Mamba.  There were concerns that C was sexually active.  The mother, I think, does not accept that, but a particular concern was C’s association with a man living in North East London who was a known sexual offender against young girls and C was found to have spent time at his home in September of last year.  In December of last year, as I have recorded, C was found intoxicated alone at home and C and her mother were involved in an unpleasant shouting argument in the street over the night of 26th and 27th December when the police were called.  

14	On 15th October there had been an initial child protection case conference and C was made subject to a child protection plan.  This did not result in an improvement and in December a pre-proceedings letter was sent and a pre-proceedings meeting took place.  The catalyst for the commencement of the care proceedings was C being discovered to have spent time – over a day, going into a second day – around about 12th January with the man to whom I have referred, despite having been told in September of his alarming record.  Further, a second young female who was present with C and the man reported a sexual assault on her.  She appeared to blame and in some way suggest that C had facilitated this assault.  Of concern was C’s subsequent refusal to help the police in any way to assist with their investigation of the facts and as I will recount there is a reflection of that sort of behaviour when C was at her first residential unit.

15	C was accommodated on 2nd February and on 3rd February an interim care order was made which  has continued to date.  C was placed in a therapeutic residential unit some distance outside London.  It is the case that there were a number of positive interactions observed, in particular C built up a good relationship with her key worker, a lady called M.  However, she started absconding from the unit as soon as 7th February and at other times there were considerable periods where she remained alone in her room and would not engage with what was going on in the unit.  The absconsions continued and there was concern about use of alcohol and illicit drugs.  Therefore the picture was mixed but sadly became increasingly negative.

16	On 21st March there was a serious incident where C and another young female at the unit became involved in an incident with a man at a local park.  This had echoes of the previous incident in January because the other young female was sexually assaulted and she blamed C for her predicament.  Therefore again a concern arose about C not only being vulnerable to sexual exploitation herself but potentially facilitating the sexual exploitation of others.  Once again, regrettably, C refused to cooperate with the police in connection with their investigations.  When more information came to light about C’s interaction with this other young female the unit made the decision that it was necessary to separate the two girls and sadly it was C who was required to leave because, as I have said, she had formed a positive relationship with her key worker.  This unit offered education on site, therapy and also various activities, but sad to report C did not engage in any meaningful way with any of those aspects of life at the unit.  I understand her reluctance to engage in the educational provision; she made it clear throughout that she would have welcomed and wished there to be education off site and from what I have read she was the only young person for whom provision for education on site was being made. 

17	At her first contact at home away from the unit C went missing over a weekend.  She was detained by the police and had to be placed in handcuffs to prevent her from hitting her mother.  This incident precipitated the need for her to move forthwith and on 5th May she moved to another therapeutic unit within the same group again at another location some distance from  LB of X.  Of course it was highly regrettable that C had effectively to begin all over again to build up new relationships both with staff and with residents.  Unfortunately C began to demonstrate the same patterns of behaviour in this new unit and there were, within a short time, a number of absconsions.  C would go back to LB of X, which was and remains the centre of her social world.  Again there was concern about her being intoxicated and being under the influence of drugs.

18	The local authority care plan at the time of the social workers’ final statement which was 18th May was for C to remain in the unit and that was supported by the guardian in her final analysis.  It is right to record that A, C’s mother, has remained entirely committed to her daughter.  Although the placement is some distance away she has maintained regular contact on at least a weekly basis and, very significantly, she has engaged in the therapy offered to parents by the unit.  She says that she has found that extremely helpful.  Indeed, I can see the benefits of the therapy already for her because it seems to me, and this is accepted by Mr. Sharples, the social worker, that her insight into the concerns has significantly improved and it is obvious to me from her approach to this hearing and the decisions she has made that she is gaining in insight into the extent of her daughter’s difficulties.  The assessments of her during the proceedings by the Maudsley and by the social worker indicated that she was minimising and did not appear to take on board anything like the full extent of the concerns and that, in my view, is beginning to change, which is obviously greatly to C’s benefit.  C did not see her father and has not seen him since she has been in care.  He was to visit once but there was a complications with arrangements for the maternal grandmother and in the event that visit did not happen.  C’s relationship with him is a complex and ambivalent one.  

19	Matters really began to deteriorate significantly after C became aware that the care plan was not for her to return home.  It is the view of Dr. Johnston that that decision is likely to be at least in considerable measure behind the escalation in C’s worrying behaviours.  Indeed, that potential escalation was clearly predicted in the Maudsley report.

20	Before going on to deal with the Maudsley assessment in particular I need to relate recent events.  As I have said, the pattern of C’s absconding in particular accelerated dramatically after she became aware of the care plan.  A recovery order had to be obtained because she returned to London on 8th June.  There was a further recovery order granted on 10th June when she had decamped to London and again on 23rd June.  She again absconded to London on 4th July and was detained by the police on 6th July, having spent the weekend at home.  Regrettably she had to be handcuffed and was behaving in an aggressive way towards the police.  Despite her being detained, she did not return.  The staff from the unit were unable to secure her return and on 7th July an emergency appointment was made for her by her mother who was extremely concerned by her very volatile and highly charged and distressed presentation.  The doctor prescribed diazepam.  On 7th July the fourth recovery order within a space of a month or so was made.  

21	On 8th July there was a very serious incident at the unit where she had been returned.  That is addressed in Mr. Sharples’ statement in support of the secure accommodation application, in particular at pages 68 and 69.  I do not intend to go into detail.  C assaulted another young female resident; she attempted to strangle a member of staff with a scarf and two of the vulnerable residents, so disturbing was the incident, began to self-harm.  She also put herself at serious risk by throwing herself over the bannister.  She was arrested and spent at least one night at the local police station and was charged with two assaults and criminal damage.  The unit plainly was unable to contain her and the local authority took the decision to provide accommodation which was in keeping with C’s own wishes and feelings, namely local accommodation in LB of X where she had some knowledge of at least one staff member.  She went there over the last weekend.  Such is C’s current dysregulation that there were immediately troubling events at this accommodation despite it being, whilst not her home, accommodation about which she was much more positive.  She was taken to the Z Hospital on Saturday, 11th July for an urgent assessment but absconded before that could be concluded.  On 12th July, when out in X, she assaulted a shop keeper, sprayed deodorant at him and assaulted a homeless person (I think she tried to remove that person’s dog).  She was again arrested.  On the night of 12th July she was kept overnight at B Police Station.  That was the state of affairs when I started hearing this case on Monday. 

22	The local authority, from 10th July, has engaged in what I can only describe as the most intensive search for a secure place for this troubled young girl.  I am told that three members of staff from the resource team have been engaged on each working day - perhaps also on the weekend, I know not – in attempting without success to locate a unit.  On the night of 13th July the only prospects were a non-secure unit as far away as Lancashire or for C to spend the night with her maternal grandmother.  I took the view, as did the guardian, that it was inappropriate for her to go to a unit, which was not in any event secure, as far away as Lancashire - indeed, it was too late by that stage for her to arrive at any reasonable hour - and that at least overnight she should stay with her grandmother.  Her grandmother found her incredibly difficult to deal with.  The mother attended and she was described as paranoid and manic in her presentation.  I had already asked for an urgent psychiatric assessment which was conducted at the police station on Monday but when that came through it said there was no mental health diagnosis but rather behavioural concerns.  The family, in particular the mother, has had concern about that finding. 

23	The plan then was for her to go to a unit in East London, a non-secure unit but with additional staff.  That was the plan for her to spend the night of 14th July.  Again – it is painful to relate – there was a further assault on a homeless person on the 14th itself.  The person was racially insulted and once again this troubled young woman spent a night at the police station; she was charged with criminal damage and a racially aggravated assault.  Therefore, to summarise, she has been charged with three separate batches of criminal offences over the last week.  She has spent a number of nights at two separate police stations and the position is plainly untenable.  I was told this morning that she did go to the unit in North East London yesterday and what will happen hereafter is difficult to predict.

24	I turn now to deal with the expert evidence in this case and in particular the Maudsley assessment which is accepted in terms of its recommendations and conclusions entirely by the local authority and the guardian.  It was supplemented by very helpful oral evidence from Dr. Johnston.  There are in fact two separate reports, an initial report dated 23rd March and an addendum report dated 5th May.  In the first report the authors diagnosed C with a conduct disorder and concluded from the assessments that she presented with a moderate to high risk of inter-personal violence and of sexual exploitation.  As a result of further information provided to the Maudsley which they did not have in their initial assessment, those risks were elevated to high risk in each case.  The conclusions in terms of placement were that the first choice in the ranking was for C to be placed in a specialist foster placement and that foster placement would require what would was referred to as “a multimodal therapeutic intervention package” which would involve intensive work with both C and the foster carers and, indeed, the Maudsley suggested consideration of something called a multi-dimensional treatment foster care (MTFC).  This local authority has had no experience of such a placement and indeed I have not either.  The second preferred option in the first report was for a specialist residential placement which would be able to provide intensive therapeutic interventions as well as meeting C’s other needs for education and treatment.  That would be similar to where she was placed recently.  The third favoured option was a non-specialist residential placement which was plainly considered less favourably in terms of there being less control over C and less intensive interventions.  Finally, there was consideration of a return home which was ruled out as being an acceptable placement alternative. 

25	When the Maudsley prepared its second report, as I have said, it had more historical information about C, in particular from the police, but also more information about her behaviour at the first unit.  That led the authors to elevate the risks of inter-personal violence and sexual exploitation.  It also led the authors to consider for the first time that there was a prospect here of having to use secure accommodation.  It was also considered that there were probably equal benefits as between a specialised foster placement and a specialist residential placement.  When Dr. Johnston gave evidence, she supported the application for placement in secure accommodation, feeling that this was the only way currently that C could be contained.  She also formed the view that at the unit the building blocks could be established for future more intensive therapeutic work.  She considered that the initial steps could be taken to address the substance misuse problem and to address the issue of emotional regulation to try to help C develop, as she put it, more adaptive ways to react to feelings of sadness, anxiety and anger.  She also considered that there could be steps taken to address her low mood and depression.  The author set out in detail in the initial report the sort of treatments which were required, evidence-based treatments approved by NICE and, in particular, cognitive behavioural therapy or dialectical therapy.  

26	I do not consider it is necessary for this judgment to go into the treatments recommended but I accept the advice of the Maudsley and in particular Dr. Johnston.  She considered that there might need to be a placement in a secure unit for three to six months.  She was asked about the impact of the proceedings on C and she said that they are probably playing a very significant role in her behaviour at the moment, although of course there were problems before the proceedings.  She said that in her professional opinion it would be better for C to have a clear timeframe and that she had been living with uncertainties for a long time which was very difficult for her.  She supported an ending of the proceedings so that C would be given a decision about her future and could hopefully start to work within that decision framework.  It was suggested to her that the recent behaviours were an acute problem and she was asked about the period in secure accommodation, she said that a three month period was unlikely to effect enough change given that the problems were difficult and entrenched and that a short term fix would not be likely to result in meaningful change.  I entirely agree with that observation.  It seems to me, sadly, that C has been on a trajectory which goes back some years now and whilst the mother sees her presentation as having deteriorated in care it seems to me that there was always a likelihood that C’s problems would become more entrenched over time if they were not addressed – which they have not been – because as she becomes older she becomes stronger willed, more autonomous, more able to act out, for example, by way of absconding,. Sadly, in my view, there was something of an inevitability in what has happened given that there has not been effective therapeutic involvement.  I accept, however, that the recent, very serious acting out is likely to have as its origin the decision that she cannot return home.  C, to some extent, has been holding on in the hope that she would be able to return home and has now reacted to the decision that she will not for the foreseeable future.  As I have said, the guardian, whilst initially being torn as to whether the proceedings could end, now supported an end to the proceedings for the same reasons as Dr. Johnston gave. That was also the professional view of Mr. Sharples, whom I found to be a sensible and experienced social worker. 

27	I will now turn to deal with the legal framework in which I must make by decisions.  

28	The secure accommodation application.  
	Section 25 of the Children Act 1989 sets out the criteria to be applied in considering such an application.  I will summarise the effect of the sections.  Firstly, a child who is being looked after by a local authority may not be placed in secure accommodation unless it appears that (a)(i) he has a history of absconding and is likely to abscond from any other description of accommodation; and (ii) if he absconds he is likely to suffer significant harm; or (b) that if he is kept in any other description of accommodation he is likely to injure himself or other persons.  It must be obvious from the history that I have related and in particular the recent history that both those conditions are amply made out in this case.  Indeed, it is my view that C cannot be contained at present in any other accommodation which is not secure.  The regulations prescribe that initially the court must make an order of no more than three months’ duration.  Under sub-section (4) if a court determines that any such criteria are satisfied it shall make an order authorising the child to be kept in secure accommodation and therefore the provisions of the sub-section are mandatory.

29	Turning to the application for a care order, I must of course have C’s welfare as my paramount consideration and apply the welfare checklist.  In particular in relation to the arguments in this case I have to have regard first of all to the amendments to s.31, in particular s.31(3A): a court deciding whether to make a care order (a) is required to consider the permanence provisions of the s.31A plan for the child concerned but (b) is not required to consider the remainder of the s.31A plan subject to s.34(11).  The effect of that sub-section which encompasses some of the reforms to the Public Law Outline is that the court is enjoined to make decisions about permanency but is not required, unless it considers it necessary to do so, to make decisions about the remainder of the care plan other than its duty to consider arrangements for contact.  I am looking in particular at the note at page 612 of the current Red Book headed “Scrutiny of Care Plan. When considering whether to make an order under s.31 the court is now required by s.31(3A) to scrutinise the care plan only to the extent of considering the permanence provisions within that plan, those being those provisions of the care plan that concern the long-term upbringing of the child in his or her family, in an adoptive placement or in long-term foster care.  There is no longer a requirement for the court to scrutinise the remainder of the care plan subject to the requirements of s.34(11)(duty to consider the arrangements for contact).”  

30	I must also consider the amendments made to the Children Act by s.32 where I am under an obligation to draw up a timetable with a view to disposing of the application without delay and in any event within 26 weeks.  The only exception to that is set out under sub-section (5) where I may extend that timetable if I consider that the extension is necessary to enable me to resolve the proceedings justly.  When considering whether to grant an extension under sub-section (6) I must in particular have regard to (a) the impact which any ensuing timetable revision would have on the welfare of the child to whom the application relates and (b) the impact which any ensuing timetable revision would have on the duration and conduct of the proceedings.  Under sub-section (7) when deciding whether to grant an extension under sub-section (5), a court is to take account of the following guidance: extensions are not to be granted routinely and are to be seen as requiring specific justification.  

31	I turn now to deal with the application for secure accommodation.  As I have said, the application is plainly made out and indeed the situation is obviously now one of extreme urgency.  This young person, C, has not been engaged in criminality on any extensive scale other than the serious conviction back in 2014.  We have a situation now where, as has been pointed out in submissions, C is at risk of being criminalised.  She is alleged to have committed three serious sets of offences over the last week.  Her emotional presentation is such that she cannot be contained in any place other than one where her liberty is restricted. She is putting herself and members of the public at risk on a daily basis. 

32	What is the response from the relevant authorities to this state of affairs?  The response to me is an immensely troubling one.  As I have already said, I am satisfied that the  LB of  X have taken every step that they can to attempt to resolve this situation.  They have approached each and every secure unit.  I am told that there are 17 units in this jurisdiction but only 60 welfare beds.  I am told that there are 1500 beds for criminal justice disposals, young people who are remanded charged with serious offences.  I am told that despite the alleged repeated offending by C that she would not meet the criteria for a remand.  I considered directing the attendance of different individuals but have come to the view in the end that it would not progress matters.  Two units were found, one in West Glamorgan and one in St. Helens, which did have spaces.  Both of those units refused to accept C on the basis that they did not consider that they could maintain the safety and welfare of the existing cohort of young people if she resided there.  One replied by email and said that they did not have the resources to provide the additional staff which would be needed.  A unit as far away as Edinburgh was explored but they could not assist.  The Department for Education was approached and they said that they dealt only with governance and that it was a matter for the individual unit.  The Youth Justice Board was approached because, I am told, that they have the facility of two emergency beds but that did not lead to any improvement or resolution of the situation.  

33	It seems to me that we are in a situation where responsibility is being shifted from one agency or entity to another.  This is an order of last resort.  If the court cannot be satisfied that such an order will be implemented, where is the young person supposed to go?  There is no more extreme order in terms of its severity than this.  In this case, as with the other cases to which I have been referred to, each day the young person and the public are being put at risk and I find that an immensely troubling situation.  I know resources are scarce but it seems to me plain that inadequate priority is being given to this situation which appears, from what I have read, to be a problem which is now emerging on a scale which would be unthinkable in the past.  Mr. Sharples, who has 17 years of social work experience, has never encountered this situation.  I have dealt with many secure accommodation applications both at the bar and on the bench and I have never encountered such a situation before.  As I have said, the public need to be aware of this state of affairs.  

34	Therefore even today when I grant the application there is no resource.  I am told that there is a chink of light in that one particular unit (location unknown) may be able to accommodate this troubled young person.  Last night there were no incidents, fortunately, at the unit in North East London but one cannot rely on that situation continuing.  Therefore, whilst I grant the application I have expressed, I hope in trenchant terms, my disquiet.  I also, on the suggestion of Mr. Hall, made contact with the President of the Family Division who made it clear that he, as the most senior family judge, could not effectively achieve any more than I could as a circuit judge.

35	I turn now to deal with the application for a care order.  The two submissions that Mr. Hall makes on behalf of the mother are firstly that this recent behaviour represents an acute phase and that the court cannot realistically assess today what might be the appropriate plan, the plan which best meets C’s welfare in three or six months.  Secondly, he submits that the care plan is in some way inchoate because the identity of the therapeutic residential placement is inevitably unknown because we do not know what the timescale will be before C can go there and I therefore  should not sign off the proceedings today.  The local authority prepared a detailed amended care plan, where they made clear in particular that if the unit in question was not able to offer the intensive therapeutic input which was needed here that they would buy in the input either from their own resources if the identified unit was sufficiently local or by utilising local resources.  I do not consider that that care plan is inchoate.  I have regard to the provisions of s.31(3A) to which I have referred.  I do not consider that there is a need for the identification of the placement, particularly when I have been given assurances that the appropriate facilities will be made available by  X.  I have no reason to doubt or mistrust that statement in the care plan.  The implementation of the care plan will in any event be subject to scrutiny by the IRO.  

36	Secondly, I do not accept that this is an acute phase and that I am unable to assess what C’s needs will be in three or even six months’ time.  I refer to the evidence of Dr. Johnston that these difficulties are entrenched and complex, that there is unlikely to be a quick fix and that change will be slow.  That evidence accords with my view and I consider that it is highly likely that there will be a need for a residential specialist placement offering intensive therapy in three or six months’ time.  

37	Thirdly, and highly significantly, I am quite satisfied that it would be against the welfare of C to delay a resolution of these proceedings.  I specifically have to take account of the impact that such an extension would have on the welfare of the child. The professional evidence all goes one way, that whilst she may vehemently disagree with the decision it is vital that a decision for this young person’s permanency plans is made today.  It is in my view wholly against her interests for her to be left in some form of limbo and I do not consider that any effective working could be done with her whilst she did not know what the long–term plans were.  

38	I am wholly satisfied that it is not necessary to extend these proceedings to enable me to resolve the proceedings justly.  I am satisfied that I have all the information that I need to make a decision in relation to permanency and I am satisfied that the decision which best supports C’s welfare is that there should be a care order.  I approve the care plan for a long-term specialist residential placement with extensive therapeutic input.  I also recognise that whilst I must make a decision for permanency, what does permanency mean for a young girl of 14½?  As I said during submissions, at 16 if she wishes to vote with her feet a local authority would be highly unlikely to be able to secure a recovery order unless there was a real and immediate risk, but even then it is very hard to see how repeated recovery orders will be able to be made.  Therefore I see the next 18 months as a vital window of opportunity to attempt to provide C with the sort of assistance she needs to enable her to move on and to live an adult life which is beneficial, meaningful for her and where she can achieve.  As I have said, it is my duty to make that decision today.

39	In the circumstances I grant the application for a care order.  I have not dealt with a BS analysis, comparing the pros and cons of the various options, for the obvious reason that everyone accepts that there is no other option than placement in care.  The issue in this case has been whether I should make a full care order today and therefore it seems to me to be redundant to go through an exercise of looking at the pros and cons, not least because the authorities make it clear that I would only be required to review the pros and cons of  realistic options  of which there is only one here.  

40	That is my judgment in this case.  
__________