
Judge warns of 'blood on our hands' if suicidal girl forced out of secure care - DanBC
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/aug/03/judge-warns-of-blood-on-our-hands-if-suicidal-girl-is-forced-out-of-secure-care
======
DanBC
For people not familiar with some of the terminology:

She's currently being held in a young offenders institution. Some people are
calling that a secure unit. If you read the judgement[1] you'll see reference
to "low secure" or "medium secure" units. These are a different type of unit.
These are hospitals, and the people in them are patients, not criminals.

The judgement is amazing. Sir James Munby continues to be impressive.

[https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgments/in-the-matter-of-
x-a-...](https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgments/in-the-matter-of-x-a-child-
no-3-2/)

> The lack of proper provision for X – and, one fears, too many like her – is
> an outrage.

[...]

> What this case demonstrates, as if further demonstration is still required
> of what is a well-known scandal, is the disgraceful and utterly shaming lack
> of proper provision in this country of the clinical, residential and other
> support services so desperately needed by the increasing numbers of children
> and young people afflicted with the same kind of difficulties as X is
> burdened with. We are, even in these times of austerity, one of the richest
> countries in the world. Our children and young people are our future. X is
> part of our future. It is a disgrace to any country with pretensions to
> civilisation, compassion and, dare one say it, basic human decency, that a
> judge in 2017 should be faced with the problems thrown up by this case and
> should have to express himself in such terms.

> X is, amongst all her woes, a young person convicted in the Youth Court and
> a prisoner of the State. As long ago as 1910, a Home Secretary, speaking in
> the House of Commons, asserted that “The mood and temper of the public in
> regard to the treatment of crime and criminals is one of the most unfailing
> tests of the civilisation of any country.” In modern times the principle has
> expanded, so that, as is often said, “One of the measures of a civilised
> society is how well it looks after the most vulnerable members of its
> society.” If this is the best we can do for X, and others in similar crisis,
> what right do we, what right do the system, our society and indeed the State
> itself, have to call ourselves civilised? The honest answer to this question
> should make us all feel ashamed. For my own part, acutely conscious of my
> powerlessness – of my inability to do more for X – I feel shame and
> embarrassment; shame, as a human being, as a citizen and as an agent of the
> State, embarrassment as President of the Family Division, and, as such, Head
> of Family Justice, that I can do no more for X.

> If, when in eleven days’ time she is released from ZX, we, the system,
> society, the State, are unable to provide X with the supportive and safe
> placement she so desperately needs, and if, in consequence, she is enabled
> to make another attempt on her life, then I can only say, with bleak
> emphasis: we will have blood on our hands

the observation levels are striking. Imagine living like this:

> 1\. Observation Levels

> • 2:1 observation at all times.

this means 2 members of staff observing child X at all times (although if
she's asleep and the door is closed that drops to 1:1)

> • 8 staff should be available at all times to aid in restraints. 6 staff are
> required to restrain [X] at a given time and 2 staff should remain available
> to support, swap with others and make relevant phone calls.

> • [X] must be within staff eye sight at all times.

This includes bathing and toileting.

> • Both staff must remain within arm’s length of [X].

This includes bathing and toileting.

