Judge slams Manchester City Council over 'deplorable' foster care case

A judge criticised a council today for taking a severely disabled teenager away from his foster mother and putting him into a care home.

Mr Justice Baker said it was "deplorable" that the 19-year-old, who has a mental age of two, was taken from his foster home after many years while allegations against his carer were investigated.

The allegations later proved to be unfounded.

The decision, the High Court judge said, was in breach of the teenager's human rights and mental health laws aimed to protect the rights of vulnerable people.

Today he allowed the authority in question to be named as Manchester City Council after giving his judgment on March 26. The teenager has since been reunited with his foster mother.

The judge condemned the flawed basis on which the council tried to justify its action, namely claiming that carers looking after adults were not allowed to physically restrain them.

In fact, the council's standard adult placement agreement expressly states that physical restraint can be used by adult carers provided they have had training.

The judge, referring to the teenager as E and his foster mother as F, said: "There was, in my judgment, a deplorable failure to take into account the close relationship between E and F, the need to sustain that relationship, and a consequent failure to arrange any contact for several months between this vulnerable young man and the person who had been his carer - his mother figure - for most of his life."

During the hearing, members of the council's social services team testified to the existence of a policy barring adult carers from using physical restraint.

One social worker said she understood there was a written policy but had not seen it, while a team manager said she had seen a written copy of the policy.

The judge said: "The local authority case on this point has been lamentable.

"I cannot understand how the social workers, and in particular the team manager, can have given evidence of the existence of a policy that would prevent the court placing E back with F when no such policy in fact existed."

He said that all is going well since the teenager's reunion with his foster mother and that he is having regular contact with his sister, identified as G, and her family.

He ruled the council breached the teenager's right to respect for privacy and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and his right not to be deprived of his liberty without legal authority under Article 5.

The council should have sought a court order before putting him into the care home, he said.

It also failed to abide by the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards required by the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

These aim to protect people who can't make their own decisions and ensure they are not deprived of their liberty without proper authority.

The judge said the care provisions for E had "undoubtedly" deprived him of his liberty - he had no private space, his social contacts were restricted, and he had no control over the medication he was given.

No blame attached to one social worker involved in the case, he said.

He said the social worker had told him "about the paucity of training" she received on the Mental Capacity Act and had requested training which by March she had still not been given.

"The responsibility for the blatant errors that occurred in this case clearly lies higher up the line of management," he said.

Liz Bruce, Manchester City Council's director of adult services, said caring for vulnerable adults is a difficult job.

"Serious concerns were raised about this young man's welfare and we had an obligation to act.

"It was not an easy decision to keep E at the home where he was receiving respite care, but his welfare was our primary consideration.

"While we strongly believe we did the right thing, the judge has made it clear that we went about it the wrong way.

"We regret this and have now put in place measures so that, in future similar cases, we will follow the correct procedures."

The teenager has a serious physical handicap, the result of a complex genetic condition, with associated kidney and spinal problems and learning difficulties.

He was removed from his foster mother's care in April last year. He had lived with her since 1995.

In November his foster mother and sister launched a legal action seeking declarations from the court that the council acted unlawfully.

The judge banned identifying the social workers involved in the case and a company and its director involved in the authority's handling of it.