is affected by the consumption of substances such as cannabis and that early child hood trauma or difficulties can have significance for a child as they grow older. Self-harm and psychological crisis can be associated with children who have experienced abuse but have felt unable to disclose or talk about it. Allied to this was the convergence of Child M’s age and the transition between child and adult services. This had some profound implications especially in regard to accessing child based mental health services. A defining ethos discussed in some of the practitioner groups centred on the distinction between an ethos in child based services that aims to be child centred in approach and acknowledges a need for a child to be nurtured and protected; the contrasting approach in an adult based service that a young adult that has to take responsibility for themselves unless there is some diagnosable condition that renders them incapable of doing this. The use of a police station on two separate occasions to detain Child M is of concern. Although on each occasion it is apparent that police officers were focussed on keeping Child M safe the use of a police station for such purposes is inappropriate unless no other option is available. On neither occasion was there any consultation with the respective local authority social care service on a safeguarding strategy for a vulnerable child or exploring alternative accommodation to a police station. There are key episodes or incidents where professional practice is commented upon in further detail. The admission and care provided at the T4 unit in June and July 2013 The GP referral to the mental health service was prompt and resulted in an admission to the T4 unit the same day and was a clear recognition about the risk of Child M’s self-harm. It was successful in helping Child M and there is consensus from mother and stepfather and professionals that it was beneficial. It brought stability after what had been weeks if not months of very difficult relationships and behaviour. There is some dissonance between the recollection of professionals and their records and the account that is provided by mother and stepfather regarding the timing of Child M’s discharge; they say that the discharge happened too quickly although this does not appear to have been articulated at the time in meetings with professionals. However, on the basis that Child M was admitted and cared for on a voluntary basis there were no grounds in any event for any professional to override the wishes of Child M to be discharged from the unit or to seek any court imposed orders through either the mental health or child care legislation.
is affected by the consumption of substances such as cannabis and that early child hood trauma or difficulties can have significance for a child as they grow older. Self-harm and psychological crisis can be associated with children who have experienced abuse but have felt unable to disclose or talk about it. Allied to this was the convergence of Child M’s age and the transition between child and adult services. This had some profound implications especially in regard to accessing child based mental health services. A defining ethos discussed in some of the practitioner groups centred on the distinction between an ethos in child based services that aims to be child centred in approach and acknowledges a need for a child to be nurtured and protected; the contrasting approach in an adult based service that a young adult that has to take responsibility for themselves unless there is some diagnosable condition that renders them incapable of doing this. The use of a police station on two separate occasions to detain Child M is of concern. Although on each occasion it is apparent that police officers were focussed on keeping Child M safe the use of a police station for such purposes is inappropriate unless no other option is available. On neither occasion was there any consultation with the respective local authority social care service on a safeguarding strategy for a vulnerable child or exploring alternative accommodation to a police station. There are key episodes or incidents where professional practice is commented upon in further detail. The admission and care provided at the T4 unit in June and July 2013 The GP referral to the mental health service was prompt and resulted in an admission to the T4 unit the same day and was a clear recognition about the risk of Child M’s self-harm. It was successful in helping Child M and there is consensus from mother and stepfather and professionals that it was beneficial. It brought stability after what had been weeks if not months of very difficult relationships and behaviour. There is some dissonance between the recollection of professionals and their records and the account that is provided by mother and stepfather regarding the timing of Child M’s discharge; they say that the discharge happened too quickly although this does not appear to have been articulated at the time in meetings with professionals. However, on the basis that Child M was admitted and cared for on a voluntary basis there were no grounds in any event for any professional to override the wishes of Child M to be discharged from the unit or to seek any court imposed orders through either the mental health or child care legislation.