Judge expresses concern at “staggering cost” of placement for boy at risk of child criminal exploitation

His Honour Judge Parker, sitting as a judge of the High Court, said the family had been known to children's services for several years “due to long standing issues with the parents' alcohol abuse, chaotic lifestyle and inability to manage A's behaviour”.

The matter came before him as the local authority had finally found a placement for A, which initially offers a 17-week assessment intervention period, although this can be extended if felt necessary.

The local authority felt that the placement would benefit A enormously, the judge noted.

Revealing that the provision had been used in other cases that had come before him in the past, His Honour Judge Parker, sitting as a judge of the High Court, said the cost of the placement “clearly demonstrates, yet again, that local authorities are at the mercy of the private sector, and I am, time and again presented with cases where a local authority have secured provision that can cost anything between £12,000 and £20,000 per week.

“That is now a regular feature in this sort of case and the concern is that local authorities just cannot continue to fund places at that astronomical cost. Local authority resources are finite. There are no alternatives save for unregulated accommodation which often is just as expensive and ineffective. Whilst it is obvious that the issue requires a solution it is not a matter for me, as a judge, to say what that should be. That is a matter for Parliament.”

The judge said, however, that it was positive that a placement had “at last” been found for A and hopefully it would help “disgorge him from the hook of child criminal exploitation”.

In those circumstances, he added, he was satisfied that it was also necessary and proportionate for him to make the deprivation of liberty declaration, as he had been invited to do.

HHJ Parker said: “I am satisfied that the local authority should have permission to apply, once again, for the exercise of the Court's inherent jurisdiction. I am satisfied that the restrictions which the local authority seek to impose amount to a confinement having regard to a comparative child of the same age. I am satisfied that the confinement is imputable to the state. The local authority and the parents cannot consent in light of the (interim) care order in place. The restrictions proposed by the local authority are the least restrictive of A's liberty that are also consistent with the main objective of the local authority, which is to keep A safe.

“I will therefore make the declaration as I am asked to do. I am satisfied that the order is proportionate, i.e. the benefits of the proposed placement outweigh the infringement of rights.”