CONDICIONES PARA LA RECEPCIÓN 45

5.1: Introduction:

Although thirty full case summaries have been completed, not all are reproduced in this particular chapter. This chapter presents critical narrative accounts of the eleven young people who were interviewed for this study, whilst Appendix 3 contains seven full summaries that cast light on the nature of some of the cases where interviews were not possible. It will be appreciated that some of the young people who fall into this category were assessed as being too vulnerable for interview. Appendix 4, meanwhile, contains four full summaries that relate to cases discussed by practitioners in subsequent chapters. Appendix 5 contains the remainder of the case summaries. It will be noted that reference is made to some of these cases in the conclusion of this chapter.

At its simplest level the purpose of the chapter is to introduce the young people in terms of their personal histories. Before dealing with some of the overarching themes in Chapters 6 and 7 it is necessary for the reader to understand something of the issues and circumstances that have shaped their lives. Additionally, an attempt has been made to identify some of the key decisions in the public care, criminal justice and other systems that have influenced their subsequent trajectories. Moreover, the relationships between the different systems are highlighted. It will also be noted that this chapter involves the initial identification of some of the themes that are taken up in later chapters. Some of the biographies are more detailed than others. This is for two reasons. Firstly, because once a theme or an issue has been identified and discussed, there is less need to labour the point in subsequent biographies. Secondly, in some cases there was simply less

documentary evidence on which to draw.

Although data gleaned from interviews and informal conversations with staff have influenced the analysis that follows, this chapter draws mainly on documentary sources of evidence. The reader should be reminded of the ‘health warnings’ issued in Chapter 4 in respect of the documentary materials on which these case summaries have been

constructed. There is, moreover, the ever present risk of hindsight bias: it is very easy to be wise after the event. It should always be borne in mind that in most cases the

researcher could not know what was on the practitioner’s mind or desk when certain decisions were made. What makes sense in the pressurised present can sometimes look ill-considered in retrospect. It should also be emphasised that these necessarily brief biographies are selective accounts of very complex lives. The judgements about which details to include and which to exclude were difficult. It will be noted that some individual decisions (by parents, practitioners and sentencers) are highlighted because they are considered influential in terms of subsequent developments. Indeed, the power, significance and far-reaching consequences of individual decisions are underlined heavily in this chapter. Inevitably, perhaps, what has been included here will reflect the concerns and preoccupations of this researcher. Nevertheless, every reasonable effort has been made to do justice to the young people concerned.

5.2.1: Anthony Turner:

Anthony Turner had recently attained his 18th birthday and was subject to a Detention and Training Order Licence when this case was being analysed. At that point he was living with his girlfriend in a flat located on the social housing estate on which he had been reared. This is a low income, high crime neighbourhood. His mother and stepfather also lived on this estate. His father resided in a nearby neighbourhood with his new partner and their young child.

Anthony is the only child of his parents’ marriage. When Anthony was five years old his parents separated and he remained with his mother. Although Mr. Turner was, and indeed remains, a significant presence in Anthony’s life, contact between father and son has actually been somewhat erratic over the years. There have been periods of close involvement interspersed with quite long spells of absence.

Anthony’s mother formed a relationship with her present partner three years after the demise of the first marriage (when Anthony was aged eight years). From the outset there

were difficulties between stepfather and son. Anthony never accepted his stepfather’s place in the family home and was deeply unhappy about the situation. At times this manifested itself in difficult behaviour. It would appear, however, that there was low tolerance for such behaviour within the home. As time progressed Anthony’s behaviour and unhappiness deepened and his behaviour deteriorated. At the age of 11 years he began experimenting with a variety of ‘soft’ drugs. At the age of twelve years Social Services became involved in a Child Protection investigation in respect of alleged

physical violence perpetrated by the stepfather on Anthony. The investigation appears to have been inconclusive, but the injuries sustained did raise concerns about Anthony’s safety. The problem was resolved - temporarily, at least - when Anthony’s grandparents agreed to Anthony living with them. Although they provided a warm and caring

environment for their grandchild, they were unable to enforce acceptable boundaries of behaviour. Consequently, Anthony failed to attend school and spent much of his spare time in the company of older boys. This situation led to Anthony being accommodated (Section 20 CA 1989) by Social Services. Apart from the briefest of interludes, Anthony has not really returned to the family home since that time. There was a short stay with his father (along with his new partner and their young child), but this proved to be unsuccessful and Anthony was asked to leave. Anthony’s perception was - and to some extent still is - that he was effectively rejected by both natural parents. It is, though, his mother whom he resents most. This is because he believes his mother’s primary loyalty was to her partner rather than to him. Given the stepfather’s alleged violence towards him, the sense of betrayal ran very deep. Nevertheless, it should be noted that Anthony’s mother was always a regular visitor to her son during his subsequent placements away from home and whilst serving custodial sentences. The relationship between mother and son appears close, but troubled by a history of resentments and perceived betrayal.

As Anthony’s history in the care system is long and complicated, the precise details will not be documented exhaustively here. Nevertheless, a few points should be made.

Firstly, Anthony experienced many different placements, both community foster care and residential. The latter category included out of county residential units not only in Wales, but also the north of England, the Midlands, the West Country and London. At the age of

13 years there was a seven month period when he averaged a different placement every month. Unhappiness, home-sickness and dislike of most of the regimes in which he was placed precipitated absconsions which, in turn, resulted in secure placements under Section 25 of the Children Act 1989. During his time in residential care he appears to have experienced some intimidation from other residents. One exception was a small unit in England that specialised in dealing with ‘difficult to place’ young people. The regime was activity-based and encouraged problem-solving on the basis of co-operation and teamwork. Anthony responded very positively. Unfortunately, funding problems led to the closure of the unit. He was transferred to another unit, but lasted there only one day before absconding.

It was whilst being accommodated that Anthony first became involved in crime. It was also at this time that his use of drugs became more problematic. By the age of 14 years he was assessed as being ‘addicted’ to heroin. His initial forays in offending were committed with other children with whom he was accommodated. Some of these were older children. After two cautions (Burglary of a non-dwelling house and Going

Equipped for Theft) he had his first three convictions at the age of 13 years. The first was for an offence of Criminal Damage (committed in a residential unit) for which a 12 months Conditional Discharge was given. The second was for a cluster of offences including two counts of Theft, three counts of Criminal Damage (related to the residential unit) and two common assaults (on members of the residential staff in the context of disputes in the unit). These matters were dealt with by way of an Attendance Centre Order. The third court appearance was for was his part in a joint dwelling house burglary. This offence attracted a 9 months custodial sentence (under Section 53 of the Children & Young Persons Act as enhanced by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act

1994).

It is worth pausing here to make some comment about the brief criminal career of a thirteen year-old child. How does the ‘object of concern’ in a child protection

investigation at the age of twelve find himself behind bars at the age of thirteen? Three points should be made. Firstly, the risks posed to young people entering any residential

unit need to be identified and acknowledged openly. Homesick, upset and vulnerable, children are not simply susceptible to peer bullying and intimidation (Renold et al, 2002). It is, of course, important to recognise that they will also find friendship and support from peers. However, they will also be open to influence and suggestion in respect of

experimentation and risk-taking in such areas of activity as substance use, sex and crime. These influences are, to varying degrees, exerted upon all young people. In a children’s residential unit, though, these preoccupations tend to be concentrated in an intense and inward-looking environment. The problematic nature of the children’s backgrounds (bereavement, abuse, neglect, etc.) will often create a combustible set of conditions within which to live and work. That children’s homes are sometimes regarded as the preparatory schools for the custodial colleges of crime is hardly surprising. This is not, of course, an argument against residential provision. It is, though, an argument in favour of assessing the inherent risks of placing any child in such a setting. Anthony, certainly, entered children’s homes within which there were young people with criminal histories. That he subsequently engaged in co-offending with some of these young people is not to say that he was coerced or easily led (although there is some evidence to suggest that he was). Rather, it should be properly acknowledged that the group dynamics at work amongst troubled young people will inevitably impact upon a new arrival at a home. Another risk that faces the young person in the residential unit is the fact that the behaviour of the residents is closely observed by staff. The risks of labelling under the scrutiny of the ‘clinical gaze’ (Foucault, 1973) and the welfare spotlight have been mentioned already. The relentless recording, filing and categorization of behaviour are part of an insidious process in which the mass of accumulated ‘evidence’ is capable of being organised in different ways to justify virtually any future decision. In the case of many children’s units, moreover, there is the risk of any behaviour within the home being defined as criminal. Thus, damage to local authority property can result not simply in internal sanctions, but also criminal prosecution. There are few parents who would call the police when a teenager damages property at home during the course of an emotional outburst. In Anthony’s case, it is clear that many of his offences were committed in the context of difficult conditions within residential settings. In pointing this out, such behaviour is not being excused. It is hardly surprising, though, that such incidents occur

amongst a young and emotionally volatile population. That the troubled behaviour of often vulnerable and damaged young people should be transferred for adjudication from the hothouse atmosphere of the residential unit to the gravitas of the courtroom is surely open to question.

Secondly, one wonders whether it would not have been possible to have considered cautions for some of the early offences that were brought before the court. Young people’s offending is often situational and transient. A sudden change of circumstances (bereavement, ill health in the family, separating parents, change of school, removal from the home, etc.), membership of a new friendship group or the breakdown of a relationship can all precipitate a short spell of behaviour that might attract the attention of the police. When young people go through such phases it is possible to accumulate a large cluster of offences within a comparatively short space of time. How the authorities categorise and respond to this type of juvenile offending can have a huge effect on what happens to young people at a later date.

Thirdly, even for a dwelling house burglary - an offence taken very seriously by the courts - it is remarkable that a 13 year-old boy should be sentenced to a custodial sentence for a third conviction (the first one having only been attracted six months previously) and a first serious offence. Perhaps a Supervision Order was considered by the court to be pointless when the young person concerned was already in the twenty-four hour care of Social Services.

The rest of Anthony’s offending career will not be recounted in detail. It can be glossed by quite simply stating that before reaching the age of eighteen years he had acquired 39 convictions for fifty offences (overwhelmingly for offences of dishonesty) and three consecutive custodial sentences (for a total of four years and three months). Of course, the custodial sentences included periods served in the community. Nevertheless, since Anthony was first received into Care he has spent most of this time deprived of his liberty. Given the pressing welfare, health and welfare needs of this young person it is perhaps surprising that only four months of this time has been spent on a Supervision

Order. Five points should be made about this whole period. Firstly, although his previous convictions do include a few dwelling house burglaries, the overwhelming majority involve minor offences of dishonesty (Theft, Handling, etc.).

Secondly, most of the offences were committed whilst being on Licence. This added a weight of seriousness to even the most trivial offences and triggered recall and/or

remands in custody. The starting point in weighing up the sentencing options, therefore, was inevitably custody.

Thirdly, from the age of 14 years onwards his offending was clearly driven by the need to feed a burgeoning drug habit. His use of heroin on release from his first custodial

sentence proved to have a profound effect on his personal life and the trajectory of his offending. What is curious about this development is that Anthony’s problem is

acknowledged by all concerned and yet it is addressed solely through the criminal justice system. The possibility of a community-based health response is not canvassed properly until he is seventeen years old (when, in fairness, drug treatment options are explored). It is not clear whether this is because of inadequate or age-inappropriate services in the locality, lack of funding or the absence of motivation from Anthony (although it has to be said that Anthony is on record as asking for help with his drug problem on a number of occasions). In one pre-sentence report (see below), it would appear that it is Anthony himself being blamed for a failure to take full responsibility for his actions. The notion that custody can provide the necessary and most appropriate detoxification and drying- out facilities for young substance misusers is possibly a view still held by some

sentencers. What is surprising, though, is that this belief is not always challenged with consistent vigour by welfare professionals.

Fourthly, the whole period under review has had a devastating effect on Anthony’s education. The almost continuous placement changes in public care and the periods spent in custody have meant that he has been outside mainstream education since the age of twelve years. Given the magnitude of the disruption, it is unsurprising that this “able boy of average ability” (as one PSR author described him) should have under-achieved

educationally. Although his Statement of Special Educational Needs identified emotional and behavioural issues, it is important to point out that the standard of educational work produced in custody was considered to be very good. This was certainly consistent with my impression of a bright, humorous and engaging young man.

Fifthly, the unstable accommodation situation has been a huge problem for Anthony during the period in question. Although his mother and stepfather initially provided accommodation for him on release from custody, these arrangements quickly broke down. The volatile nature of relations between Anthony and his stepfather precipitated his departure from the family home on more than one occasion. His homelessness forced him to rely upon old networks of peer support (sleeping on friends’ sofas, etc.) which, in turn, exposed him to drug use and criminal activity. The fact that he failed to notify a YOT worker of his ‘change of address’ also put him in breach of his Licence. On this occasion Anthony was only back in the community for two weeks before using drugs, and three weeks before being remanded in custody.

The importance of establishing Anthony in stable accommodation was certainly recognised by the YOT worker supervising him at the time of my analysis. She made vigorous efforts to involve Social Services’ Leaving Care Team in helping to secure such accommodation for Anthony. In fairness, Social Services had responded positively by placing him on various waiting lists for social housing (council and Housing Association) in the hope that something could be secured by the time he attained the age of eighteen years. His history of drug use was an obstacle in respect of some housing associations and projects, but he was eventually found council accommodation in due course.

What is striking about the six year period during which Anthony had been caught in the ‘penal-welfare complex’ (Garland, 1985: 262) is the powerlessness of this young person and the difficulty he experienced in getting his voice heard. Whilst the Children Act

1989 and subsequent developments in the public care field (noted in Chapters 2 and 3) have raised awareness about the importance of consulting young people who are looked after by the state, the failure to listen is much evidence in this case. Two examples of

powerlessness will be highlighted briefly here: one took place in custody, the other in the community.

At the age of sixteen years Anthony was settled at one custodial institution and was making good progress there. Whilst the institution was located in England, it was reasonably accessible for his mother’s visits. When there were plans to relocate him to another institution further away from home he made strong representations against the move. He was particularly concerned that his mother would not be able to visit him as often as previously. Given that Anthony was a young person with a background in public care and needed to maintain close links with his family, this should have been a

compelling argument. In desperation Anthony took to extreme measures in order to get his voice heard. He subsequently explained his actions in a letter to a YOT worker: