To ask what’s the alternative to a Deprivation of Liberty order?

@soupfiend that is my experience also. Especially the bit about CAHMS considering that some self harm and suidical ideation are not MH issues and therefore not their remit.

I was in a secure MH unit at 14. This was years before these DOL placements existed & I was horrified to read about these young people.

The problem that needs addressing is much much earlier for these families. Social services, Education , SEN , police, criminal justice system, childrens homes, foster care services, MH services have all been starved of funding by successive governments for so long they barely function.

The problems are hidden from the majority of the public. Just scrolling through recent MN posts there's a real dislike for supporting the poorest & most disadvantaged families. No one wants to hand over their 'hard earned ' money to support society.

Oh dont get me started!!!

My only experience of DoLs was icw a MH issue (not at all fair of me to describe further) and was before the years that BBC gave stats for. Thank you for the info on the changing thresholds.

The increase in MH issues in children in the last 4 or so years is concerning

@soupfiend

'its behavioural'

One of my most hated phrases!!

The vast majority of children we work with where DOLs are in use or being applied for, or where secure is being sought is not for grooming and exploitation, its for what we would consider MH issues (self harm, suicide attempts) but CAMHS do not consider a MH issue so they're not involved with the child at all.

In addition, where there is a high level of anti social behaviour, attacks on staff, the public, self harm, public disturbances, the criminal courts expect that children are accommodated in 'secure settings' without actually having any understanding about what the legal thresholds for that is. Often a child is in court being heard for those issues and courts expect the child can be detained in secure right there and then. A DOLs or trying to re create a secure setting within the community just doesnt work. Residential services are not set up to 'police' children in this manner

Equally, if it was stipulated that male workers dont work with female children, there would be even fewer placements available.

And yes, the prices quoted above for these types of placements are not unusual, we're working with this day in day out, its why local authorities are going bankrupt.

@MoggyP a big part of the reason for the increase in DOLS is changes in when they've been deemed necessary.

For example in the past a child might be moved to a rural home so it was difficult for them to run away, or they might not be allowed a phone at age 15 and those things were just decided by the social worker, manager and carers. Now, any restrictions like that which are likely to last more than a week or two, would require an application for DOLs. This is so that a children's guardian is appointed and the court oversee the restriction to make sure there's a plan to reduce the restriction. The aim is to prevent children in care having restrictions that make it easier for professionals to manage in the short term but leave them deskilled and unprepared for leaving care at 18.

Some DOLs apply in situations that any reasonable parent would do for a child at home, eg having a locked gate if the home opens onto a busy road without a pavement, or just choosing not to give a teenager a phone. Not all are the level of restriction cited in the article.

There has undoubtedly been an increase in young people struggling with mental health needs as well, and a shortage of suitable placements where dols might be avoided if the care was better and available earlier, but a big part of the increase has actually been to protect children's rights by the court and guardian overseeing restrictions in care plans.

That does nothing to help the boys who are subject to a DoL though.

What I found striking was the increase in numbers in recent years. I mean, I know the covid has neurotoxic effects and we are storing up increased levels of many difficulties, but could it really be causing erratic/dangerous behaviour at such a rate that this level of increase is the expected amount? Or is this really about the professionalism of both those involved in applying for and those involved in the granting of, these orders

@Confortableorwhat it will vary in different areas but where I am, children subject to dols due to grooming is very much in the minority. The vast majority are due to mental health, risk of serious self harm/suicide, risk of running away and being too vulnerable (eg no sense of danger/fear of strangers, which is common for children who have moved around a lot/been neglected)

@ToeIssues81 yes. There's been multiple headline news stories in the last few years about the lack of provision, and high court judgements about DOLS and there being no available alternatives to local authorities. Councils can't not house the child somewhere, so the private providers have them over a barrel. The profits made by some providers are horrifying.
Weirdly the system dissuades good providers from taking on the highest need children, as they risk their Ofsted gradings (eg if there are incidents of self harm or violence as that all has to be reported to Ofsted and they pressure the home if they feel the home isnt meeting the childs needs) so they're more likely to take children who are a safe bet. So the most needy children end up with providers who either don't have good Ofsted reports, or set up brand new 'placements' and care for them while unregulated. It makes me really angry.

Break the grooming gangs. Another example of something that doesn't affect middle class families (much) therefore being treated as unimportant.

My current thought after reading that article is to say no they shouldn’t be happening.
They are not fit for purpose and it’s swapping one trauma for a state sanctioned trauma.

Agree with pp that root causes should be looked at and supervision of vulnerable girls should not be done by men.

Product of out outsourcing and lack of longer-term, evidence based quality care and support. Which costs. Especially in the shorter term. Councils are selling their art works and buildings at the mo. None are likely to invest in proper services that these children deserve.

For those posters saying there's no alternative - the DOLs itself isn't always the issue, eg it makes sense that if a child is at risk of suicide that they need to be supervised.

The problem is that the most vulnerable children are often in 'placements' that are staffed by minimum wage agency staff with very little training. Despite costing councils thousands (12-18k a week is not unusual for a child in a solo placement with 2:1 or 3:1 staffing. And in those settings there's usually nothing to actually address the root causes, it's just firefighting the day to day crisis. Restraints are more frequent and more severe than they should be because the staff often don't know how to respond to the child to avoid situations escalating.

I've worked with children who have been bounced around from one unregulated placement to the next, every time going to the bottom of a CAMHS waiting list in that area, and the only education offer being some online tutoring. It's heartbreaking.

I heard the report on Womans Hour. Why on earth were girls subjected to male guards? And what gave the men the idea that they were supposed to supervise showers? Who chose the men for this task, because as has been shown in Edinburgh, the men who want to enter this like of work are the men who shouldn't
I remember reports some years back that girls in care were going out of homes to their pimps and the homes were not allowed to lock them in. Presumably deprivation of liberty orders were designed to counter that, but have obviously not been thought through.

In my experience they've been used for children whose mental health makes them a danger to themselves. There's a chronic, severe shortage of provision for such children and this is the only way of keeping them safe.

I was wondering about this. If their behaviour was so extreme, and I've met some kids like this at work. I do t see what other options there are. Obviously some of the behaviour of the carers described in that report, is absolutely wrong. But I'm
Not sure how else those kids could have been kept safe.

I agree they aren't the best for everyone, but I have worked with some children for whom they have worked - but only for intense support for a short period of time (eg 3-6 months) with a good programme of step down support when they move back home. I agree about the distance issues, because there's so few of them, as convenience for family to visit is key, as they are usually the relationships that you're trying to build up for a successful return home (or return to care, but feeling a sense of belonging to family )

@Bridgertonned but secure units might have been a good idea in theory. In practice it's not a great idea to take groups of the most vulnerable children in society and have them live together 24/7. I saw children coming out of those homes more traumatised, and more deeply enmeshed in exploitation than when they went in. And they usually involved sending the child hundreds of miles away from home too. They weren't the answer either.

Pointythings is right.

Legally, these orders are an alternative to a secure placement. A secure placement is a purpose built, highly regulated children's home setting that has security similar to a youth detention centre or mental health hospital. They typically have a range of different levels of expertise on site, eg therapeutically trained carers, access to a psychologist, workers who specialise in working with victims and perpetrators of abuse/exploitation.

Those type of settings have largely been closed down, hence it done on a much smaller ad hoc scale, eg with a couple of minimally trained carers in a short term rental trying to do the same thing. It's really really sad.

It's very difficult. My anecdotal experience is that once a young person is being exploited like this (and it applies to county lines too, which is mostly boys) it's very, very difficult to extricate them, not least because they often don't recognise they are being abused. But the answer probably isn't DoLs because I've seen the young person just reverts as soon as it is lifted or expires, it doesn't actually treat the root cause, and being under the order is just another trauma. I do believe that unless home is actively abusive the young person should stay with family and the interventions should be home based - but, there is always the risk that the abuse will just continue.

Is this the result of services for vulnerable young people being decimated?