Essex County Council v MH & Ors

Neutral Citation Number: [2026] EWHC 2328 (Fam)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

FAMILY DIVISION Case No: FD25C41363 Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL Date: 10/09/2026 Before :

MRS JUSTICE THEIS DBE - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Between: Essex County Council - and - MH -and- GH -and- ST (through her Children’s Guardian) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Applicant Respondents Alice Owen (instructed by Essex County Council) for the Applicants The first and second respondents did not attend Marcia Hyde (instructed by BTMK Solicitors) for the Third Respondent Children’s Guardian in person Hearing: 7 July 2026 Judgment: 10 September 2026 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MRS JUSTICE THEIS DBE This judgment was delivered in private. The judge has given leave for this version of the judgment to be published on condition that (irrespective of what is contained in the judgment) in any published version of the judgment the anonymity of the child and members of their family must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media and legal bloggers, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so may be a contempt of court. Judgment Approved by the court for handing down ECC v ST Mrs Justice Theis DBE : Introduction 1. 2. 3. 4.

5. These proceedings relate to ST, now age 15 years. The applicant is Essex County Council (“the local authority”). The other parties are ST’s parents and ST, through her Children’s Guardian, Robert Murphy. During the proceedings ST was separately represented by her solicitor, as she did not support the conclusions of the Children’s Guardian. It is of note that despite not agreeing with his conclusions ST fully co- operated with the Children’s Guardian, who had been involved in previous proceedings concerning ST. ST’s mother, MH, took a limited part in the proceedings and was kept updated about them. ST’s father, GH, took no part in the proceedings. The local authority application dated 10 December 2025 seeks orders under the inherent jurisdiction authorising the deprivation of ST’s liberty. Save for the first 2 hearings, each of the 6 hearings since then have been before me. On 7 July 2026 I made an order authorising the deprivation of ST’s liberty until 29 September 2026. This judgment explains my reasons for doing so. ST is rightly described in the papers as a vulnerable young person. She has experienced over 20 placement moves since 2017 when she was placed in the care of the local authority. Many previous reported decisions have raised serious concern about the shortage of appropriate provision for young people such as ST. It is only necessary for me to refer to two.

6. The Supreme Court in Re T [2021] UKSC 35 at [166] Lord Stephens stated: ‘First is the enduring well-known scandal of the disgraceful and utterly shaming lack of proper provision for children who require approved secure accommodation. These unfortunate children, who have been traumatised in so many ways, are frequently a major risk to themselves and to others. Those risks are the gravest kind, and include risks to life, risks to grievous injuries, or risks of very serious damage to property. This scandalous lack of provision leads to applications to the court under its inherent jurisdiction to authorise the deprivation of a child’s liberty in a children’s home which has not been registered, there being no other available or suitable accommodation’.

7. In 2023 the former President of the Family Division, McFarlane P, stated in Re X (Secure Accommodation: Lack of Provision) [2023] EWHC 129 (Fam) at [42] having undertaken a detailed review of the previous cases stated: “42. It is, of course, not for the courts and the judges to determine matters of policy and the allocation of additional resources with respect to increasing the provision of secure accommodation places to meet the welfare needs of this most vulnerable group of children. All the courts can do is seek to draw attention to the problem in the hope that those who do have responsibility for these matters in Parliament and in Government will take the issue up and look to bring about a change in the current chronic shortfall in secure placements. Despite the regular flow of judgments of this nature over recent years, it is, at least from the perspective of the experienced senior Judgment Approved by the court for handing down ECC v ST judges who regularly deal with these cases, a matter of genuine surprise and real dismay that the issue has, seemingly, not been taken up in any meaningful way in Parliament, in Government or in wider public debate.” 8. He concluded at [62] – [64] as follows: “62. This judgment does not record any decision by the court, either about X or more widely as to the law. As I have said, its primary purpose is for the court, once again, to draw

public attention to the very substantial deficit that exists nationally in the provision of facilities for the secure accommodation of children. In drawing to a close, it is simply necessary to reiterate the central message by stressing that very senior judges have, for over six years, been consistently calling for Parliament and government to acknowledge the need for action to address the gross lack of registered secure accommodation units.

63. Judges are currently being forced to perform functions which are properly the role of government by overseeing the search for suitable placements and by sanctioning ad hoc arrangements in individual cases because there is no placement available in the statutory scheme. Whilst the Supreme Court, in Re T, has held that using the inherent jurisdiction in this manner is lawful, due to the gross lack of secure accommodation provision the High Court is nevertheless having to operate outside the law as it has been made by Parliament and, despite the judge’s consistently asking it to do so, Parliament has seemingly not even discussed this parlous and most worrying situation.

64. It must be accepted that simply adding to the number of judgments calling for action will not improve the position for young people such as X, but in the present situation, that is all the judges can do. It is a situation that will not change until urgent and effective action is taken by government and Parliament to discharge the obligation that is on the State to protect the country’s most vulnerable children. The submissions made on behalf of the Secretary of State are therefore most welcome. They record, it would seem for the first time, an acceptance by the Secretary of State for Education that, nationally, there are significant problems with the availability of sufficient placements and that ‘this requires action by His Majesty’s Government collectively to support local authorities to meet their statutory needs’. It is to be hoped that this marked change from the approach trailed in the Department’s letter of 11 November does indeed result in action and that the need for the court to hand down judgments of this nature will be a thing of the past.” 9. It is a matter of some regret that the clear message set out above has not heralded any significant change for these young people. ST’s circumstances require an order under s 25 Children Act 1989 in secure accommodation where her needs in the widest sense would be met, as they would include meeting her education and

therapeutic needs. Such a placement is simply not available. The latest evidence the court had was that there are 54 live referrals for secure accommodation and only 5 potential placements available. Put another way at least 49 vulnerable young people like ST do not have suitable placements available for them. I strongly suspect the real figure is very much higher as many children are placed in unregistered placements.

10. I can only echo what Lord Stephens said 5 years ago that this remains a ‘scandalous lack of provision’ and repeat the call made by McFarlane P that the lack of availability Judgment Approved by the court for handing down ECC v ST of suitable placements ‘requires action by His Majesty’s Government collectively to support local authorities to meet their statutory needs’.

11. Whilst recognising the challenges ST’s behaviour has presented in terms of her self- harming and repeated absconding, the bleak picture presented by the evidence in this case has, in my judgment, demonstrated that her most basic needs have simply not been met whilst she has been in the care of the local authority.

12. That conclusion is evidenced by: i) ii) iii) iv) The high number of placement moves ST has had. Over 20 moves in 8 years. ST’s most recent placement was rated as being ‘Inadequate’ by Ofsted. The court was not informed of this on 30 December 2025 when it was asked to authorise the move to this placement. There was no effective system in place in the local authority to assess whether that placement met ST’s needs. ST had been there for 4 weeks before anyone from the local authority visited her, or the placement. The appalling lack of educational provision ST has had. She has lost (at least) two critical academic years. The system, such as it is, has continued to pay for online tuition which it transpired during these proceedings had only had a 7% take up. There had been no effective review of that by the Virtual School system, no active consideration of looking at other ways to engage ST in education with the Head of the Virtual School Service stating that he is limited on what he can offer. v) As regards therapy ST has had none and remains in the catch 22 position of not being considered suitable for it whilst not in a stable placement and being placed in placements where no such provision or support is available. This application has required 8 court hearings with detailed directions having to be made at 6 of them to get anything like a full picture of what is going on for

ST. The Children’s Guardian has played a critical role in looking under the lid of continued generic assertions made by the local authority. He has been an effective and reasoned advocate for ST. His actions have demonstrated the vital role the Children’s Guardian has in these cases which, by definition, are dealing with the most vulnerable young people in society. During these proceedings monthly Team around the Placement (TAP) meetings have been established. For the first time everyone who is involved in ST’s care in the widest sense are in one place when decisions are made. This has resulted in better informed decisions being made for ST. It should not have required these proceedings for that basic structure to be in place. 13. 14. 15.

16. Going forward any court dealing with these applications should actively consider the following matters: i) Has the court been informed of the Ofsted rating of any placement and, if not, why not. Judgment Approved by the court for handing down ECC v ST ii) Has the allocated social worker been and visited the young person. If so, when and, if not, why not and what are the plans to do so. iii) What are the education arrangements for the young person. Are they working and if they are not, what is proposed going forward. iv) What are the arrangements for any mental health support and/or therapy. Are they working? If not, what is being considered to manage that? v) Are there regular meetings of all those involved in the young person’s placement to ensure the arrangements are kept under active review. If not, why not? 17.

18. Put simply, the evidence in this case has painted a dispiriting picture of a vulnerable young person who has been let down by those whose duty it is to care for her and provide her with the education and mental health support she clearly requires. I have directed that this judgment is sent to the Director of Children’s Services at the local authority. Relevant background 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24.

25. There were previous care proceedings concerning ST and her brother, CT, which concluded with care and placement orders being made in February 2018. The placement order in relation to ST was subsequently discharged, as it was determined ST would remain in foster care. Due to the repeated acts of self-harm and absconding when ST is at very serious risk of harm ST has been the subject of orders authorising the deprivation of her liberty on three occasions. The first being July to December 2024, the second July to November 2025 and then within these proceedings since 11 December 2025. Since 30 December 2025 ST has been residing in a residential placement run by X Care. ST has contact with her mother and maternal grandmother six times a year. The previous orders in 2024 and 2025 were not sought to be extended after ST had made progress in her then placement and was engaging with her placement providers. Following this application on 10 December 2025 a short term order was made on 11 December 2025 by Keehan J authorising the deprivation of liberty until 13 January 2026. The restrictions included 24 hour 3:1, physical restraint if necessary to prevent ST from harming herself or others only to be undertaken by suitably qualified trained staff with minimum force and for a minimum period, locked doors and windows at the placement and whilst in transit and steps to prevent ST having

access to sharp objects. ST was then placed in Harlow. That placement gave notice on 30 December 2025 and ST was moved to X Care in Northampton. The deprivation of liberty order was varied by consent on 30 December 2025 by HHJ Furness KC to reflect the change in placement. What was not known to the court or any of the other parties at that time was that the new placement at X Care was rated as inadequate by Ofsted. Judgment Approved by the court for handing down ECC v ST 26.

27. As a result of the court being made aware of that position at the first hearing before me on 13 January 2026, the orders made that day included directions for the local authority to set out what steps had been taken by X Care to address the concerns as identified in the recent Ofsted report. In addition, a statement was directed from ‘the placements team at service manager level, regarding the system for identifying concerns regarding the Ofsted rating for any placement and why that system was not activated in this matter or if there is no such system what will be done to put a system in place and by when.’ The local authority filed a statement from SM, Service Manager of the Children and Young People Placement Service at the local authority. In that statement she sets out that her team first had a request for a new placement for ST on 5 December 2025 to be in place by 15 December 2025. It was confirmed that ST required a solo placement with 3:1 staffing and an application for a deprivation of liberty order was going to be made. The search for placements commenced on 9 December 2025. The details were shared with 32 placement providers, no placement was found. ST’s existing placement agreed a short extension. The only provider who expressed an interest in considering a placement for ST was X Care.

28. SM outlines the system for identifying concerns regarding the Ofsted rating of placements as follows: 5.2 If the Social Work Team indicates they may wish to consider a potential placement the Children and Young People’s Service (CYPPS), will send the provider a Placement Suitability Form to complete. This form asks the provider to give details of how they will meet the child’s specific needs as set out the child’s placement referral form. 5.3 On receipt of the Placement Suitability Form a Senior Practitioner in CYPPS will review the information to assess the suitability of the placement for that particular child. 5.4 In addition to reviewing the Placement Suitability Form the Senior Practitioner will complete the following checks: The providers Statement of Purpose, Ofsted registration and recent report, the last 2 Regulation 44 reports, Ofsted development plan/monitoring report and action plan if appropriate, Location Risk Assessment, the providers Workforce development plans, leadership training, and cultural competence. The Senior Practitioner will record a summary of their assessment of placement suitability in the placement suitability form. 5.5 The Placement Suitability Form and other relevant documents, (Statement of Purpose, Ofsted registration and recent report, the last 2 Regulation 44 reports, Ofsted development plan/monitoring report if appropriate, Location

Risk Assessment), will be sent to the Social Work Team for their views about whether or not to proceed with the placement. 5.6 Within 5 working days of the placement being made the CYPPS Placement Finding Team will notify the CYPPS Quality and Improvement Team, (Q&I). A monitoring visit will be completed by Q&I within 6 weeks of the placement being made. These timescales have been reviewed in January 2026 and the expectation is now that the notification is sent within 1 working day and that the quality assurance visit is completed within 3 weeks if the provider is rated as inadequate. Judgment Approved by the court for handing down ECC v ST 29. 30. 31. 32. 5.7 Essex County Council will not place a Looked After Child with a provider who is rated as inadequate unless there are no other Ofsted registered options on the date the placement is needed. In this case X Care expressed interest in providing a placement for ST on 19 December 2025. On 22 December 2025 CYPPS sent the provider the Placement Suitability Form to complete and asked them to supply their key documents, including their Statement of Purpose, latest Ofsted report, Regulation 44 reports and Location Risk Assessment. On 22 December 2025 X Care supplied their Statement of Purpose, Ofsted Certificate, Locality Risk Assessment and the Ofsted Action Plan from November 2025. They did not supply the Ofsted report which

stated that the provider was inadequate and did not supply a completed placement suitability form on this date. At this point they did not make a formal placement offer but were seeking to explore the possibility of offering a placement. As the provider had not made a placement offer no further enquires were made by CYPPS. On 30 December 2025 CYPPS were informed that a new placement was needed for ST that same day, not the previously agreed date the placement was extended to of 5 January 2026. The social work team contacted the placement provider to confirm their availability. X Care confirmed the placement was still available and they could take ST that day. CYPPS reminded X Care to complete the Placement Suitability Form. The social work team indicated they wanted to go ahead with the placement and arrangements were made to place ST there that day. The CYPPS Placement Officer did not notify the duty Senior Practitioner that the placement would be progressing and therefore no further quality assurance checks were completed at the time of making the placement. On 2 January 2026 X Care returned the completed Placement Suitability Form to CYPPS. This was reviewed on 5 January 2026 by a Senior Practitioner in CYPPS, they identified that the placement was rated by Ofsted as inadequate and completed a review of the Ofsted monitoring report and action plan. SM’s statement continues

‘As the placement had already been made, the Senior Practitioner sought advice from the CYPPS Placement Finding Team Manager who advised him to notify the Social Work team. The Senior Practitioner did not complete this action due to a pure oversight on his part due to the fast paced and highly pressurised nature of the work. The Social Work team were therefore not notified that the placement had been rated by Ofsted as inadequate. A quality assurance visit is arranged for 21-01-26.’ The visit was the day after SM’s statement.

33. SM’s statement sets out the learning and next actions by the local authority as follows: ‘7.1 The individual staff involved with making the placement and undertaking the review of placement suitability have been reminded of the process. Namely the need for the assessment of placement suitability to be carried out prior to the placement being made and for the Social Work Team to be notified of significant concerns about the potential placement such as an inadequate Ofsted rating. 7.2 The process regarding placement suitability assessment has been reviewed in November 2025 and it is evident that the Placement Finding Team require further Judgment Approved by the court for handing down ECC v ST 34. 35. 36. 37. training in terms of the implementation of the process. This training will be undertaken on 27-01-26. 7.3 The practice guidance regarding assessing placement suitability for emergency placements will be reviewed and strengthened in time for the training taking place on 27-01-26. 7.4 Practice in terms of assessing placement suitability will be kept under review by the Placement Finding Team Manager and the CYPPS Service Manager and any further practice issues will be dealt with swiftly.’ At the next hearing on 10 February 2026 a further statement from the local authority was directed setting out a) any concerns over ST’s behaviour including notes from the unit or incident

reports; b) what provisions are being put in place in respect of education; c) whether any therapy is being put in place for ST and when that will start; d) a clear plan setting out what ST needs to achieve in order for restrictions to be reduced at her current placement and how that will be managed by staff; e) what provisions are being put in place by the placement to address the areas of concern as identified in the recent Ofsted report. In addition, a further statement was directed from the placements team at service manager level, updating the court as to (a) the training that will be undertaken and steps that will be taken more generally to ensure that a child is not placed in a placement rated by Ofsted as inadequate in the future; (b) an updated interim care plan in respect of ST; (c) an updating statement addressing: i. Placement searches; ii. Education; iii. The Ofsted regulation of ST’s placement. The statement from the allocated social worker, AH, dated 2 February 2026 dealt with ST’s educational provision as follows ‘[ST] is engaging in tutoring online, however, has shared that she finds this too easy. The tutor is going to support [ST] to undertake an informal assessment to assess her ability and give her work to challenge her and help her improve her skills’. AH gave a very positive report of her visit with ST on 28 January 2026. AH confirmed no further

placements are available and the X Care placement had had its Ofsted rating changed from ‘Inadequate’ to ‘Needs improvement’. AH considered ST had begun to form ‘secure and meaningful’ relationships in her placement. The statement dated 16 February 2026 from PA, the Team Manager, Children in Care, confirmed she had been the Team Manager responsible for ST’s care since July 2019. She outlines in her statement ST’s escalating behaviour of serious absconding and self- harm that puts ST and those caring for her at significant risk of harm. PA confirmed that ST had not been in formal school based education since February 2024. PA reports that ST has engaged intermittently with online tutoring, finds her current online tuition too easy and the ‘Virtual Service has appointed an education adviser whose role is to liaise directly with the tutoring service. This involves reviewing [ST’s] progress, ensuring the assessment if her academic level is completed, and setting revised targets and workstreams so that [ST] receives tuition that reflects her capabilities and promotes academic progression’. Her statement continues that to avoid any delay in securing a school placement for ST ‘applications will be made to local mainstream schools so that [ST] will be placed onto a school roll’ so that when restrictions are reduced ST will be formally attached to a school ‘allowing for a smoother

transition into a structured education’. The Virtual School will then work Judgment Approved by the court for handing down ECC v ST collaboratively with the identified education provider to design a bespoke package. PA states ‘Ongoing multi-agency monitoring. [ST’s] education arrangements will be jointly overseen by the Virtual School, the allocated social worker and the placement. Regular updates, review of assessment outcomes, and multi-agency coordination will ensure [ST’s] education package evolves in line with her stability’. As regards therapy PA stated ST was awaiting the commencement of formal therapeutic intervention although was booked for a dialectical behaviour therapy (DBT) assessment on 2 March 2026. In the interim ST and the staff at her placement have been receiving help from the Looked After Child Mental Health Team at the hospital near the placement who have been providing ‘clinical oversight, advice and guidance relating to her emotional wellbeing and mental health needs’. PA reports that the placement manager is trained in DBT. As regards CAMHS involvement, when ST moved placement on 30 December 2025 it was to another area which prompted a referral for ST to transfer to the local CAMHS team. PA reports this had been chased at the end of January 2026 and again in mid-February 2026 but ‘no response had been received from CAMHS’. PA stated that staff within the

placement had recently attended ‘mental- health training’, but no details were given. Turning to plans for ST’s restrictions to be reduced PA set out the plan that had been agreed at the Looked After Children’s Review on 28 January 2026 as follows: ‘Weekly logs are provided to the Local Authority and incident reports are shared immediately, allowing consistent oversight from the social worker, Team Manager, IRO and Quality Assurance Team. In addition to this existing oversight, [ST’s] placement is being supported by the Local Authority’s Risk in the Community Worker and by Mental Health Coordinators, who are available to offer advice and guidance to staff to help them understand [ST’s] emotional needs and implement strategies that promote her safety and wellbeing.’ PA’s statement deals with the steps being taken to address the areas of concern regarding the placement. PA confirmed that the Ofsted rating of Inadequate following an inspection in September 2025 stated ‘significant weaknesses in safeguarding, leadership oversight, record keeping and day to day safety’. In the January 2026 Ofsted inspection PA reports that the rating had improved to ‘Requires Improvement’. PA details the changes the placement have made and that a senior practitioner in the placements quality assurance team at the local authority had visited and they will continue to monitor the position. PA reports

in her statement that the search for alternative placements was continuing and noted that there are 54 live referrals and only 5 potential placements available. In her updated statement dated 16 March 2026 SM set out the details of the training that the local authority have implemented to prevent a children like ST being placed in a placement that has an inadequate Ofsted rating without effective senior management oversight and decision making. The history of the placement searches for ST are set out in the statement from KS, Senior Social Work Practitioner within the local authority CYPPS. She confirmed 50 residential placements have been approached from which 3 providers have expressed an interest and 1 offer had been received. For the detailed reasons set out in her statement they are not being pursued and as at 16 March 2026 there were no other placement options for ST. 38. 39. 40. 41.

42. Judgment Approved by the court for handing down ECC v ST 43. 44. 45.

46. KS’s statement also deals with the placement search for a secure placement, stating: ‘On 12/2/26 a new referral was made to the Secure Hub for a secure bed for [ST]. On that day there were currently 54 live referrals and 5 available beds.’ No offers had been made and the secure placement search was closed on 4 March 2026. In her updated statement dated 24 March 2026 ST’s social worker, SH, reports continued incidents of dysregulation by ST that put her and her carers at risk of harm. At the next hearing, on 27 March 2026, further statements were directed from the local authority to address the following: a) Any concerns over ST’s behaviour including notes from the unit or incident reports. b) An update on the Ofsted regulation of ST’s placement. c) Is there additional mental health provision to that set out in the statement from SH in place, or planned? d) What efforts have been made to put in place a dedicated psychologist / therapist to build a relationship with ST and move with her between placements as recommended by the Guardian? Has funding been sought from panel and if so what was the outcome? If no efforts have been made, explain why. e) Is there additional educational or community provision to that set out in the statement from Virtual Schools in place, or planned? The updating evidence from the local authority dated 1 May 2026 came from PC, the Team Manager in the

Children and Care Team. PC states she became the allocated Team Manager for ST on 23 February 2026. She confirmed ST had been open to the mental health co-ordinator since May 2025 and once she is in a space where her mental health is not deemed as being in crisis she will be referred back to the CAMHS service. This would be subject to there being a new referral. Over the last year ST has had mental health co-ordinator system support through their attendance at professionals meetings and ‘targeted meetings’ with the social worker. Although it appears from the evidence that the mental health co-ordinator had been off sick for a period of time with no individual covering the support for ST. PC confirms that the local authority position is that ST needs stability in her placement before any therapeutic work can be undertaken and resists any suggestion by the Children’s Guardian to have a dedicated psychologist or therapist who could build a relationship with ST and be available to her in the event of any further placement move. PC confirmed that the manager at ST’s placement who was DBT trained was leaving.

47. In ST’s social workers AH’s updating statement dated 1 May 2026 she provides an update regarding ST’s behaviour at the placement, stating that the number incidents have decreased. As regards her education AH stated: ‘In respect of education, [ST] has not been in formal education for approximately 18 months, though she has engaged intermittently with online tutoring during this period. [ST] is known to respond positively to incentive-based approaches, which were previously used at her placement in [name] to encourage participation in online learning. Due to difficulties engaging with live online tutoring, a meeting was held with the tutoring provider and alternative arrangements were agreed. The provider will supply work for [ST] to complete independently, which she will submit at the end of each day. The Local Authority, in consultation with Virtual School and Educational Psychologist [SP], has explored further educational options. An Education Otherwise Than in School (EOTIS) package has been discussed and is under consideration, with no Judgment Approved by the court for handing down ECC v ST confirmed timescale at present. If agreed, it is intended that [SP] will meet with [ST] to obtain her views and identify her educational goals. In addition, the Head of Virtual School, [JE}, has confirmed that, if required, the Local Authority can commission an Education, Health and

Care assessment to determine whether ST meets the criteria for an EHCP.’ 48. The statement from JH, Head of Virtual Schools, is dated 8 May 2026. He confirmed ST’s personal education plan is dated 6 February 2026. The statement sets out the structure for ST as a ‘child missing education’. All children in their care are appointed a Designated Teacher from the Essex Virtual School Inclusion Team who oversee completion of the termly PEP Review with the child’s allocated social worker, carer and/or parent as appropriate. JH continues: 49. ‘8. Education provision is sourced and funded by EVS for the first 20 days to allow time for either; the child’s EHCP to be localised (where they have one), school admission requests to be made by the ASW, or a Section 19 request for support to be submitted to the appropriate Local Authority. The conditions of the Pupil Premium Plus Grant prohibit the use of this funding to support a child’s core education offer or fund services that other agencies have a statutory duty to provide. After the initial 20 days, education funding responsibility will be sourced by the EHCP held by the authority where the child resides, their on-roll school or through Section 19 from the Authority where they reside.

9. EVS monitors in the normal way through the termly Personal Education Plan (PEP) Review. In addition, a weekly Child Missing Education Review meeting monitors provision and any changes to the child’s needs or circumstances. Where necessary an EVS Education Advisor will be deployed to provide advice and guidance about education.’ At the next hearing on 21 May 2026, the court directed further evidence from the local authority that addressed the following matters: a) Any concerns over ST’s behaviour including notes from the unit or incident reports; b) What provisions are being put in place in respect of education, safety, knives, phones and use of the same, self-harming and ST’s general safety. c) Whether any therapy is being put in place for ST, if so, by whom, how it will be delivered and when that will start and if no such therapy is provided by the local authority the reasons for that decision. d) The local authority’s decision regarding any further deprivation of liberty order, the grounds for any such application and the terms of the same. e) A clear plan setting out what ST needs to achieve in order for restrictions to be reduced at her current placement and how that will be managed by staff and how any incentives for change will be delivered; f) Details of the local authority and police investigation into the allegations made by ST against staff at the placement. g)

Details of the allegation by ST against the staff member [X], when was this disclosed, by whom and who it was reported to, steps taken by the local authority to investigate the complaint. Statement to include an explanation of the delay in the local authority responses to the complaint, made on 16.05.2026, by ST that she was assaulted. h) Setting out details of any steps undertaken by the local authority to address with the current placement delays in reporting incidents and sending out incident reports. i) Steps taken by the local authority to support and monitor ST in her current placement. j) Steps taken by the local authority to meet with the placement to discuss the delay in information being shared about ST or reporting any incidents. k) Any change of social worker planned. l) Whether or not the application for an EHCP Judgment Approved by the court for handing down ECC v ST 50. 51. plan has been submitted and the timetable for the progression of the same. m) Any plan for a tutor to be provided for ST. n) Details of any resources identified for ST locally to support her e.g. mentor programme, youth programme, animal therapy, animal courses. In her statement dated 29 May 2026 PC dealt with the matters listed above. As regards education she stated ‘Discussion with the home manager [name] has identified that [ST]is being provided with sheets from the virtual education team

in Northampton, he prints these off for [ST] who sometimes engages to complete them. [The manager] has reported that [ST] is inconsistent in her engagement. Discussions continue with Virtual School’s Northampton and Virtual Schools Essex and I respectfully request that Virtual Head JE provides oversight of these communications. The residential home has been communicating with Virtual School [name] in Northampton who has requested information in respect of the completion for an Education and Health Care Plan and this information has been sent appropriately.’ As regards therapy she reported the local authority resource panel will decide in early June whether the request for funding for a psychotherapist for 6 – 12 sessions is agreed, although she notes that to date ST has stated she will refuse such therapeutic work. PC outlines the consequences of ST’s dysregulation including aggressive behaviour, absconding and calling emergency services. She reported that there had been a reduction in incidents and recognised the need for a step down plan for ST, supported by monthly Team Around the Placement meetings to be attended by the residential manager, social worker and social care manager. PC confirmed that as a result of the case-loads held within the Children in Care team and the complexity of ST’s case her case will be transferred to LB, an experienced duty senior, with PC

retaining management oversight. On the eve of the next hearing the local authority filed a statement from Dr C, Consultant Clinical Psychologist, who is the clinical lead for ‘Fostering, Children in Care, Leaving and After Care, Adoption, Kinship, D-Bit and residential’ at the local authority. She described ST’s circumstances as ‘complex and require a carefully structured and sensitive approach. From a clinical perspective, it is essential that intervention is guided by a clear therapeutic framework, with defined aims and regular reviews’. She continues ‘[ST’s] presentation reflects developmental trauma, multiple losses and neurodivergence (ADHD). She presents in a persistent state of hyper- arousal and psycho-physiological dysregulation, operating primarily in “survival mode”. Her behaviour and responses are largely driven by lower-order neuropsychological systems rather than higher-order cognitive processes. Considering this, a neurosequential model of intervention is indicated. This model prioritises progression through three interrelated stages: 1. Establishing objective and subjective safety (regulation of the brainstem – “survival brain” that controls basic functions and threat responses, such as fight/flight/freeze) 2. Supporting attachment and relational connection (regulation of the limbic system – emotional brain that processes emotions, attachment and memory) 3. Trauma reprocessing (based on accessing the cortex – thinking brain, which is responsible for reasoning, reflection and learning).

52. In Dr P’s view ST is at stage 1 as there has been a reduction in her risk taking behaviour and some stability in her placement. She regards the second stage as being particularly Judgment Approved by the court for handing down ECC v ST important for ST due to her history of developmental trauma. In Dr P’s view trauma focussed therapeutic work should only be considered once sufficient progress has been made in the first two stages.

53. Dr P considers placement stability to be important and sets out that the following will be done: i) ii) iii) iv) v) A new Mental Health Coordinator (MHC) will be allocated without delay. The local authority will provide ongoing consultation and guidance to the residential team, recognising them as the primary agents of change. This will include the development and regular review of a structured plan to support ST’s engagement in daily routines and activities. Monthly Team Around the Placement meetings are organised to discuss the structure of any plans for daily activities, interaction between the staff and ST and the MHC will provide oversight of how these interactions can be implemented to support ST. ST’s placement has been receptive to joint thinking and recommendations so far and they have started implementing some structure to ST’s days; the local authority intends to highlight the importance of more proactive, purposeful engagement in extended routines, including more opportunities in the community. The local authority will continue to liaise with CAMHS to seek consultation, support for the residential placement and any clinically indicated assessments. The local authority will encourage the residential unit to engage with local initiatives once ST is settled enough to access activities that can be safely accessed outside the unit. The local authority will ensure

that any payment for extra or bespoke activities is fully considered at Resource Panel to agree funding. (vi) The relevant local authority clinicians will continue providing consultative support to the system. (vii) Consistent, predictable contact with ST’s allocated social worker is an important component of her relational stability. ST will continue to have statutory visits via her newly allocated social worker. ST made a working relationship with her previous social worker who will still be available to support additional visits to ST to ensure that she does not have a feeling of loss and rejection from the change of social worker. (viii) The relevant local authority clinicians will liaise with the local authority’s virtual school provisions to facilitate ST’s re-engagement with formal education once that is possible. (ix) The local authority will continue liaising with the local CAMHS for advice and support to the residential staff, as well as any assessments that could be deemed helpful and relevant and plan for direct interventions when signs are clear that ST is ready to access trauma-reprocessing interventions. (x) The local authority will continue holding ST’s placement accountable for the development of her objective, subjective and relational safety. Judgment Approved by the court for handing down ECC v ST (xi) ST’s social worker will engage ST in life story work.

This will be delivered at ST’s own pace and following what she is interested in and curious about in her history. This intervention aims at increasing ST’s understanding of her past experiences and at forming a coherent, non-shaming narrative about her life so far which will support the therapeutic life story work elements of future psychotherapy. On 5 June 2026 the court considered the updated material and heard oral evidence from JE, Head Teacher of Essex Virtual School, PC, Team manager at the local authority and the Children’s Guardian. In his oral evidence JE acknowledged what ST wanted was to be in main education, to have face to face education. However his responsibility was to provide online education, face to face provision would fall under the responsibility of the (different) education authority where her placement is. He was pressed on what had been done regarding ST’s education when they continue paying for 2 hours 5 days per week when there had only been 7% attendance by ST. JE could only respond that it was their duty to provide education which they reviewed on a termly basis and monitored it weekly adding ‘we are limited on what we can offer’. The court was left with the clear impression that as long as the online education provision is being provided that their duty was discharged. JE referred to a recent change when work sheets were sent through to the

placement for ST to complete but could give no information as to how it was working, how the placement was managing it or how it could be changed if it didn’t work. In her evidence PC outlined the recent implementation of monthly Team Around the Placement meetings which include the placement, mental health co-ordinator and education that provides a structure to monitor ST’s care. PC accepted that it would be of assistance to add ST’s online tutor to the meetings. PC confirmed the updated local authority position was not to seek to move ST from the placement which they considered was working and was being overseen by the local authority Quality Assurance team. She confirmed the Ofsted rating remained ‘requires improvement to be good’. In his oral evidence the Children’s Guardian confirmed he had been involved in previous proceedings concerning ST. He set out his view that there had been no meaningful attempts at mental health support for ST. It transpired the manager at the placement who was said by the local authority to be DBT trained had only done an introduction, and he regarded the assessment undertaken by Dr P as being a generic assessment. He was very clear in reporting that ST had informed him that nothing had changed for her, particularly regarding education and therapy. He agreed there needed to be a staged reduction in restrictions with clear goals. He considered

until PC took over as the Team Manager there had been little, if any, progress regarding ST’s education and therapy. As he stated there needs to be some attempts at therapy as unless ST gets therapy soon she will never engage. The order on 5 June 2026 directed the local authority to file: a. A letter / statement setting out the steps taken by Essex Virtual Schools to enable / promote ST’s engagement with online tuition by 4pm on 9 June 2026; b. A statement from KM, Quality Assurance Officer for the local authority, in respect of what steps she has taken following the latest Ofsted inspection including details of any visits and discussions with ST’s placement arising from the report and any recommended action plan by 4pm 54. 55. 56. 57.

58. Judgment Approved by the court for handing down ECC v ST on 12 June 2026 c. an amended Care Plan for ST by 4pm on 19 June 2026 which shall include (but not limited to): i) Any provision of therapy and/the way in which any need for therapy is monitored; ii) The conditions and timescales for when the LA will return the matter of funding for therapy back to Panel; iii) A detailed step-down plan to end the deprivation of liberty restrictions with timescales and conditions; iv) The arrangements for ST’s birthday; v) The arrangements for ST’s education.

59. The statement from KM, from the Quality and Improvement Team, dated 8 June 2026 outlined the Ofsted position regarding the placement. She confirmed its overall rating as ‘requires improvement to be good’, the most recent report being dated 25 May 2026. The report identified a number of concerns which KM summarised as follows: ‘The report identifies a number of concerns, including the absence of a registered manager since July 2025, weaknesses in management oversight, shortfalls in staff qualifications and training, issues relating to maintenance of the home environment, and limited engagement in education. The report also recognises that there are positive relationships between staff and the child, that the child has made some progress whilst living at the home, and that there are no serious or widespread failures placing the child at risk of harm.’ KM has made contact with the new manager who has applied to Ofsted to become the registered manager. KM has considered the regulation 44 reports which identify a mixed position highlighting developing relationships between ST and staff and some progress in daily living skills but identifies issues relating to consistency of routines, aspects of staff practice and management oversight. KM considers the placements June 2026 Action Plan sets out the actions proposed in response to the Ofsted findings. The recently allocated social

worker provided her statement on 27 June 2026. As regards education on 11 June 2026 an application for an Education, Health and Care Plan assessment (‘EHCNA’) was submitted to the relevant local authority and the SEND team were contacted with a request for fast tracking. On the 16 June 2026 the Education, Health and Care Needs Assessment advice request form was completed and returned to the relevant SEND department. The allocated Educational Psychologist has made contact with ST’s placement and following a remote meeting plans to meet with ST on 2 July 2026. The EHCNA assessment caseworker has confirmed that all professional advice is expected to be received by 28 July 2026. There has been a recognition that ST experienced difficulties engaging with online learning and Essex Virtual School has successfully commissioned a new face to face tuition provider. There have been two multi agency discussions on 19 and 23 June 2026 by the allocated Inclusion Officer and the relevant local authority to consider the options to support ST’s engagement in education. The plan had been to reduce the supervision from 3:1 to 2:1 supervision on 16 June 2026, following a month of ST not absconding from the placement. On 6 June 2026 ST absconded from hospital having been taken there having self-harmed with a shard of glass and informed the paramedics she had drunk half a bottle of perfume. The

police were notified and ST returned to the placement the following day. The TAP meeting on 25 June 2026 decided the step down plan would be delayed until 6 July 2026. On 7 July 2026 the court heard further submissions from the parties and made an order authorising ST’s deprivation of liberty until the end of September 2026. No further hearing date has been fixed. That order will expire unless a further application is made. 60. 61.

62. Judgment Approved by the court for handing down ECC v ST The court was informed that the supervision measures have been stepped down to 2:1 in the community and placement as of 6 July 2026. It is the local authority’s intention to step down the restrictions in place to 1:1 supervision in four weeks on the basis there are no further missing from placement incidents. The local authority confirmed that a further Team Around the Placement Review will be convened prior to the next stage of the step-down plan (week commencing 27 July 2026). If there are isolated incidents during the step-down period, the local authority’s plan in the first instance would not be to re-increase staffing but to focus on key work sessions and exploration with ST to prevent incidents. Legal framework 63.

64. The legal framework governing orders authorising the deprivation of liberty changed during the currency of this application. The decision by the Supreme Court in Reference by Attorney General for N. Ireland [2026] UKSC 16 [AGNI] concluded that the acid test of continuous supervision and control and not being free to leave set out in P v Cheshire West and Chester Council [2-14] UKSC 19 had created what the Supreme Court in AGNI considered to be a crude white line test between the objective and subjective elements of deprivation of liberty. This had led them to be considered sequentially rather than by a multifactorial analysis, where there is overlap between the two elements. They should not be applied in isolation to the subjective element of an individual’s ability or otherwise to give valid consent. The court in AGNI determined that a broader assessment of an individual’s circumstances should be considered where no single factor is determinative.

65. Ms Owen in her written submissions provided a helpful summary of the decision in AGNI as follows: a) b) c) d) The starting point in assessing whether someone has been deprived of their liberty within the meaning of article 5 is the specific situation of the individual concerned. That assessment is multifactorial and takes account of a range of factors including the type, duration, effects and manner of implementation of the measure in question. No single factor is determinative [118]; The difference between deprivation and restriction of liberty is one of degree or intensity, not one of nature or substance [119]; There is an overlap between the objective and subjective elements of a deprivation of liberty [187]. The assessment of the objective element can take account of the specific context and circumstances of the restrictive measures that are different from the paradigm of confinement in a cell. Factors relevant to the objective element include the possibilities available to the individual to leave the restricted area, the degree of supervision and control over their movements, the extent of isolation and the availability of social contacts [121]; The effect of restrictions on an individual, including their compliance and lack of objection (if they are capable of giving tacit agreement) is relevant in assessing the objective element of confinement. The relative Judgment

Approved by the court for handing down ECC v ST e) f) normality of a placement is also relevant in this assessment. Similarly, in situations that are far from the paradigm of confinement in a cell, the purpose for which a measure has been taken is a factor to be considered. The fact that an individual lacks legal capacity does not necessarily mean that they are unable to understand and consent to their situation in a manner that prevents it from becoming a deprivation of liberty. The degree of understanding an individual in fact has regarding their circumstances, even though they lack legal capacity, is an important part of their concrete situation [123]. The fact that the individual has chosen or has willingly accepted the measures in question is a relevant factor to be taken into account in determining whether they constitute a deprivation of liberty [129]. Whether someone experiences the situation in which they are being kept and cared for as amounting to detention contrary to their wishes or as constituting a broadly supportive home environment where they are content to live their life is a basic aspect of human experience, and there is accordingly no good reason to disregard or discount the individual’s own evaluation of their position [135]. Where restrictions become progressively more intrusive, it will be relevant to consider whether they are imposed in response to an

increase in the need in a particular case to protect the individual and/or the interests of others. As Ilias and Ahmed, para 217, makes clear, the subjective experience of the individual affected is relevant. If they do not experience a restriction as a major intrusion in their life, that tends to indicate a classification as a restriction on liberty of movement rather than as a deprivation of liberty [136(iv].

66. An evaluation of the overall nature and effect of the arrangements in place is now required in determining whether measures amount to a deprivation of liberty when viewed in their full context. Relevant considerations for the court to take into account in undertaking this evaluation can include: i) ii) iii) iv) v) vi) The degree of control exercised over that person. The extent to which their movements are restricted. The opportunities available to maintain relationships. Participation in ordinary circumstances. The duration of the arrangements. The purpose and necessity of the arrangements. vii) Whether less restrictive alternatives exist.

67. Part of that evaluation should include the individual’s own experience of the arrangements including matters such as their wishes and feelings, level of contentment and any signs of objections to the arrangements. Judgment Approved by the court for handing down ECC v ST Discussion and decision 68. All parties, save for ST, submit that an order authorising the deprivation of ST’s liberty should be made.

69. ST is currently subject to the following restrictions: a) b) c) d) e) f) Supervision on a ratio of up to 3 staff both in the placement and outside of it. Supervision on a ratio of up to 3 staff both during the day and at night. The supporting staff and/or support workers may if necessary physically restrain ST to prevent her harming herself or others, such physical restraint to be undertaken only by suitably trained staff and may only use the minimum force and for the minimum period required to ensure ST is kept safe from herself and others. A written record must be kept of any instance when physical restraint is used. Locking doors and windows at the placement to prevent ST from leaving the placement. Doors and windows may be locked in the vehicle that transports ST between placements during any transition period. Prevent ST from accessing any sharp objects that she may harm herself or which may be used to harm herself or others.

70. On behalf of the local authority, Ms Owen submits ST has been the subject of these restrictive measures for seven months, they have been necessary to prevent ST causing harm to herself and others. The main measure that deprives ST of her liberty is the level of supervision in the placement and in the community, with the potential of physical restraint. ST regards the level of supervision as being oppressive and objects to it. Ms Owen submits that whilst it is recognised there have been a reduction incidents they seek an order for twelve weeks so that the step down plan detailed in the most recent care plan can be implemented. Ms Owen submits the authorisation sought in the order remain both necessary and proportionate to the risk of harm ST has experienced previously and would be likely to experience in the event the restrictions are lifted prematurely and in an un-planned manner.

71. Ms Owen submits that the evidence now provides an up to date assessment of ST’s placement which has been informed through CM’s quality assurance visit on 25 January 2026, consultation with the placement including a review of the regulation 44 reports and the provider’s Action Plan dated June 2026. CM’s evidence notes the improvements regarding the stability of care the placement has provided for ST and the steps taken to address the concerns following change in management. CM notes the continuing concerns which include limited educational engagement and continued missing episodes.

72. As regards education, Ms Owen notes the court has extensive evidence from JE and the difficulties faced by the education department arising from the lack of placement stability for ST and her relocation out of area which hindered progression in her Judgment Approved by the court for handing down ECC v ST obtaining an EHCP. JE stated there had been five iterations of ST’s EHCP planning as a result of placement moves. JE set out the steps that had been taken to progress an education, health and care assessment (EHCA) of ST which will enable a EHCP application to be made to the relevant local authority SEND. This included an abridged process whereby EVS will be funding an educational psychologist to assess ST. Ms Owen submitted that JE hoped the consultation would take place by the end of the academic term with a view to an appropriate setting being identified from September 2026. Ms Owen submits the primary duty in respect of schooling sits with the local authority where the young person lives.

73. Ms Hyde, on behalf of ST, submits the order is not necessary, is disproportionate and is not the least restrictive options. Ms Hyde submits that ST is 15 years old and her liberty is severely restricted by the order sought due to the level of restrictions supervised by up to 3 adults and being unable to go into the garden on her own, the impact on her privacy, the restrictions on her being able to engage with other young people of the same age, she has had no education for a significant period of time and her contact with her family is restricted.

74. Ms Hyde sets out that since December 2025 the evidence demonstrates ST has been without active social work for a significant period of time, has not been offered therapy, has not received effective education and has fallen between various state agencies whose purpose is to care for her and provide her with an education and support. Ms Hyde submits this is illustrated by the fact that her new care plan dated 18 June 2026 is written by a social worker who has never met her, it has not been discussed with ST and the promised step down to 2:1 staff ratio did not occur as ST absconded on 7 June 2026, the details of which were only provided just before the hearing on 7 July 2026. 75. 76. 77. 78.

79. The Children’s Guardian supports the orders sought by the local authority. On any view it is clear the order sought by the local authority that include up to 3:1 supervision, locked doors and windows in the placement, and the way those restrictions are experienced by ST, which she objects to, means that she is deprived of her liberty. The Children’s Guardian has rightly raised concerns regarding ST’s time in the care of the local authority. These have included the fact that her current placement is believed to be her 25th placement, there have been numerous changes of social worker coupled with periods of lack of proactive oversight of her needs due to staff absences. He reports ST’s views when he visited her that while she recognises the order authorising the deprivation of her liberty such an order makes her want to run. In his first report in these proceedings, in early February 2026, the Children’s Guardian reported that ST had not been provided with or able to access education in any meaningful way over the previous two sets of proceedings so that, in reality, she has missed two years of education which in his view are the ‘most vitally important years of formal education which has and will continue to have an impact on her into adulthood’. The Children’s Guardian reports the same bleak landscape regarding mental health support for ST. As he noted in his most recent

report ST has done ‘incredibly well over the last few weeks and indeed when I consider the reduction in incidents in comparison to the past, in the last few months, she has done well despite the rocky start and the Judgment Approved by the court for handing down ECC v ST 80. 81. 82. 83. challenges surrounding the lack of mental health support and education she should be given credit for that’. The lack of a co-ordinated approach has been a feature of this application. When the Children’s Guardian visited ST on 23 June 2026 he intended to get her views on the new care plan however he discovered ST was unaware of that, as was the placement manager. I agree with the Children’s Guardian’s analysis that making this order meets ST’s best interests. Until very recently there had not been proper monitoring of ST’s placement. It has taken these proceedings to prevent any drift, produce an action plan and an effective care plan. There is now a pathway that provides a step down structure so ST can, at last, see what is on the horizon for her. The court can only hope that going forward the progress made during these proceedings regarding management of ST’s needs will be carried forward. The lack of effective co-ordination and monitoring has also impacted ST’s education. ST has missed out on a significant part of her education. The labyrinthian system has totally failed to meet ST’s

educational needs for over two years. Essex Virtual School continued to provide tuition when it was clearly not working, as they considered that they had discharged their statutory duty with no apparent understanding as to how it was or was not actually meeting ST’s education needs. There was no system of review or proper oversight with the detrimental consequences for ST. In his final report the Children’s Guardian conclusions are set out below. I have set them out in full, as in my judgment it provides what I regard as a perceptive and accurate analysis of the current position. I echo his fears about how ST’s interests and needs have been lost through the lack of collaborative working by the professionals with the statutory responsibility to be ST’s corporate parent. He stated as follows: 17. [JE] in his summary wrote, “During the hearing last week, it was stated that ST had experienced 24 placement changes. The high frequency of these changes across at least five LAs has meant that ST has not been in a placement long enough for the completion of statutory assessments or the school admissions process to be completed. A degree of stability since the start of this term has provided the opportunity to explore the completion of statutory assessments complete assessments and without an assessment of ST’s mental health needs it has been challenging to formulate an education plan that adequately meets need and aligns with ST’s Care Plan. I am concerned that there have been no representatives from Health attending any of the meetings EVS has been involved with”.

18. While I completely appreciate as stated in [JE’s] first paragraph highlighted that ST has had all of these placement changes and that without a doubt has created a great deal of the difficulties we see, what may have made this a great deal better for ST is consistency from her corporate parent. We will never know if consistency of care rather than what appears to be reactionary care would have made a difference in appropriate placement identification and therefore stability earlier on.

19. In relation to the second paragraph and something spoken about by the Judge and me at the last hearing is his professional opinion that without a proper assessment of Judgment Approved by the court for handing down ECC v ST ST’s mental health, in his words, “it has been challenging to formulate an education plan that adequately meets need and aligns with ST’s Care Plan”.

20. There have been many discussions surrounding the best possible chance of stability for ST, keeping her busy with education has been one and her having the therapeutic input to support her with the almost lifelong trauma that she has been exposed to both in the care of her mother and more recently while in the care of the Local authority. It is a worry that [JE] says that to find the right education plan for ST relies on an effective assessment of her mental health. However, the Local authority care plan (2.1) states, “The Local Authority is actively working to secure a more suitable and structed education provision that meets ST’s needs. As such applications have been made to 4 schools in the local area, and an Education, Health and care needs assessment was completed to the residing Local Authority. Whilst it is appreciated that there will be a need for therapeutic support for ST, at this present time ST is not in a position for this to be meaningful and purposeful for her. The priority at this time, is surrounding connection, sense of security and a space for reprocessing. As such a neurosequential model of intervention has been recommended by the clinical lead. Thus the stages of this are about establishing objective and subjective safety, supporting attachments and relational connection and trauma reprocessing. ST’s readiness for therapy will be actively and regularly

monitored through; • Team around the placement meetings, which take place monthly. • Ongoing consultation between the residential placement, mental health coordination, with input from CAMHS. • Child Looked After reviews, chaired by Ms Michelle Langley the IRO. • Regular communication between placement and the allocated social worker. • Incident and weekly reports provided by the placement. Formal therapeutic intervention can only be progressed when ST is able to demonstrates an increased emotional regulation, a sustained sense of safety and capacity to engage in reflective work. “ 21. I remain at a loss that the professionals working to support ST appear, unless I am mistaken, not even able to agree what needs to come first.

22. Without therapeutic input we are according to [JE] unable to understand the best educational provision for ST to keep her focussed and to allow her some chance of education for her last year, however, the care plan describes no therapeutic input until she is ready to engage. While I appreciate that she may say she does not want to engage, ST when you get to know her can be a very engaging young person, and while she puts up a front, consistency breaks that down.

23. I remain concerned that we have a care plan that shares ST’s wishes and feelings from a social worker that has not yet met her, and indeed some those wishes are out of Judgment Approved by the court for handing down ECC v ST date. There is discussion within the plan about ST accessing the online education when the home is telling me she is not.

24. I remain worried that the professionals surrounding ST do not appear to be on the same page in relation to education and mental health. • That Essex Virtual Schools blame the social worker for a lack of referral in the first instance, • That the EHCP appears to have not progressed, or at least an understanding of where that is at. • The care plan is at odds with Virtual school’s view that they can only provide 15 days more education within their statement, whereas the care plan states, “Virtual schools are also involved and supporting the allocated social worker to ensure that ST has access to appropriate educational setting”.

25. While I am in agreement with the step-down plan to end the Deprivation of Liberty and that effectively the positive ‘time spent’ for want of a better phrase, be taken into serious consideration to support ST in knowing that she is seen and listened to, especially when looking at where we are at in that plan.

26. In relation to the care plan, I feel that it remains for me very generic, telling us how things should work, sadly for ST this while we all know is what should happen, it has not been the case for too long to ST’s detriment.

27. At the time of writing, I have not had a reply from Michelle Langley the Independent reviewing officer in relation to her views.

28. I can only implore that the Local authority starts making genuine steps in earnest at being the corporate parent that they have the responsibility to do under The Children Act 1989.

84. This careful critique by the Children’s Guardian accurately and graphically illustrates the consequences for ST of the inability of her corporate parent to properly meet her needs, in particular her mental health and educational needs. ST remains caught in a hopeless catch 22 situation where the care plan sets out that therapy will not be offered to ST until she begins to show behaviours absent the therapy that such therapy is designed to support, made worse as those responsible for her education indicate an assessment of therapeutic needs are necessary to formulate the right education provision for ST but the local authority have pressed on searching for school provision without a therapeutic assessment.

85. It is hoped going forward the local authority, which includes the education authority and the mental health services, will now properly manage and meet ST’s particular needs, rather than those needs continuing to be lost to a fragmented silo way of working to the detriment of ST’s most basic welfare needs.