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

[ToeIssues81]

To protect these children from drugs, sexual exploitation. To me it’s not the order that’s the issue but those who carry out the day to day care of these children.

BBC News article

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9xxyl3gp39o

@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.

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.

@soupfiend

'its behavioural'

One of my most hated phrases!!

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

Oh dont get me started!!!

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.

@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.