Case summary
Inspector’s comments
Important learning
Take-away learning

Back to keeping other people safe homepage Next chapter: Reviewing to keep people safe

---

This case example illustrates where the interventions and services delivered showed a good understanding of a child’s risk of harm to others. We expect interventions and services delivered to:

Back to top

Case summary

Phoebe is a 15-year-old female and a looked after child. She has emotional and mental health needs. She received a nine-month referral order for serious assaults against residential staff and criminal damage.

During her childhood, Phoebe suffered physical abuse and neglect and was subject to a child protection plan before becoming a looked after child. She was living in a residential home where all her offending had taken place.

At the start of the order, Phoebe was very unhappy. She had not been out of her residential placement for some time and had a mistrust of adults. When the case manager first met Phoebe, she would not come out of her bedroom or engage with her in any way. The case manager slowly built up a relationship with her and continued to see her at home and speak to her through the bedroom door. She recognised that, because of her childhood experiences, Phoebe was withdrawing from the world around her in order to keep safe. The case manager spoke to Phoebe about her feelings towards the residential staff who were the victims of the assaults. She recognised that Phoebe was confused about her feelings towards the members of staff. She thought they had not understood her and should have tried to help her by recognising that some of her behaviour was a cry for help. She acknowledged, however, the seriousness of her actions and that the workers would have been scared and that some had been physically hurt.

The case manager had planned the delivery and implementation of this order primarily to minimise the risk of harm Phoebe presented to others. She then planned to work with Phoebe to improve her sense of self and minimise the likelihood of continued isolation and feelings of hopelessness. Finally, the plan focused on the support required from primary care and mental health services. The case manager referred Phoebe to specialist CAMHS services. A cognitive behaviour programme was identified to help Phoebe improve her impulse control and reduce her aggressive and violent behaviour. However, there was a three-month wait for this.

In the meantime, the case manager prioritised the relationship between Phoebe and the residential staff as an immediate action, and worked through a range of restorative approaches with the staff team in order to manage any risk of harm to others. This included one-to-one meetings with some staff members and shuttle mediation with others. There were some early signs of repair in Phoebe’s relationships with others in her home; she was spending more time in communal areas and was less isolated. The case manager and Phoebe’s social worker spent time with the residential staff looking at ways they could interact with and support Phoebe, as well as de-escalate situations.

During the assessment and planning stages, Phoebe had identified boxing as an interest she would like to explore. The case manager was keen to engage her in things she enjoyed doing, particularly activities that would get her out of the residential home to meet other children and make some friends. In addition, any activity that would coach her to control and manage aggression would help reduce the risk of harm she presented to others. At first Phoebe was anxious and reluctant to go. The case manager suggested she drive her to the venue, and they attend together. Phoebe, however, struggled to leave the residential home and so the case manager encouraged her to manage this in stages, starting with looking at her car from the window of her room. Gradually, over time, Phoebe was able to sit in the case manager’s car and then eventually the case manager could drive her to the boxing club. This was a staged approach to building up trust and making progress at a pace she was comfortable with before she physically entered the club. The case manager accompanied her on a couple of occasions and she now attends boxing independently.

Throughout the interventions, the case manager engaged Phoebe in exploring all the options available to her to minimise her social isolation and maximise her opportunity to learn something new, get out to a club and meet others, and enjoy learning a new sport.

Back to top

Inspector’s comments

The inspector identified this as an example of effective practice as, from the beginning, the case manager recognised her overarching responsibility for public protection and worked closely with staff at the residential home to ensure that the risk of harm Phoebe posed to other people was minimised. As staff were the identified victims, restorative justice work was completed to help build relationships to increase everyone’s safety. The inspector recorded that focusing on an activity that Phoebe wanted to do helped to develop trust among staff at the residential home, Phoebe and the case manager. The case manager understood that it was important to work at the child’s pace and sought feedback from her, and from other agencies, in order to promote the safety of other people.

Back to top

Important learning

• The key highlight in this case for managing risk to others was to help the child identify opportunities to explore things to do and enjoy, as well as focusing on the control factors needed to minimise risk of harm to others.
• The case manager factored in the experiences of early life trauma in her case management and oversight of this order. She took a trauma-informed approach and worked at the child’s pace while ensuring that restorative practices were in place to reduce the risk of harm to the residential staff.

Back to top

Take-aways – applying the learning

For further information on this subject, please see:

Department for Education. (2018). National protocol on reducing criminalisation of looked-after children.

Crown Prosecution Service. (2020).The decision to prosecute: the 10-point checklist for offences in children’s homes.

Back to top

This case summary is intended for training/learning purposes and includes a fictional name.