Family condemn ‘barbaric’ council over removal

Speaking exclusively to Channel 4 News the woman – who cannot be named – described the council as “barbaric, unprofessional.

“They’re supposed to be a caring service, I didn’t see an ounce of care, an ounce of thought of best interest in any of it,” she said.

Last year the 19-year-old man – who has a mental age of two – made some comments at school about being locked in a wardrobe. Although at the time he did not have a wardrobe, and because of his disabilities he was unable to describe the world around him, this was reported to social workers, who decided to take him away from the foster home pending an investigation.

The young man, referred to in the case as ‘E’, had lived with his foster mother since 1995. He was taken from her care and put initially in a respite unit, then in a care home.

His foster mother, who must also remain anonymous to protect his identity, was told by social workers he was going into respite care for a few days while the allegations were investigated.

“I went to the respite place with him and told him I’d definitely be coming back to pick him up,” she told Channel 4 News.

She was not allowed to see the teenager for nearly two months. She cried while describing a reunion, when she found him dirty and smelling, with scratches on his arms. She had to tell him she still was not able to bring him home.

“I’m sure he could tell I was upset when I said to him ‘I can’t pick you up today, love, but I will definitely be picking you up soon. Be a good boy.’ He just couldn’t understand it. He said ‘I want to go home, mum, I want to go home'”.

About E's condition

E suffers from a complex genetic condition called tuberous sclerosis. Although the condition can vary in severity, E has a severe form. It is associated with kidney abnormalities and a severe scoliosis of the spine.

Difficulties associated with the condition can worsen with age, when non-cancerous tumours in certain organs of the body - in particular the brain, kidneys and heart - cause further complications.

In E's case, tumours in the brain have led to learning difficulties which cause significant social and communication difficulties. According to his paediatrician, E's expressive and receptive language skills are equivalent to that of an 18-24-month-old child.

As the case was the subject of proceedings in the Court of Protection none of those involved can be identified. The man at the centre of the case was known as ‘E’ in court papers.

It was only last week that the judge allowed Manchester City Council to be named as the authority involved.

When Mr Justice Baker handed down his decision on the case in March, he criticised the authority for its “grave and serious” errors which had contravened the young man’s human rights under Articles five and eight of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Council condemned

In the Court of Protection, Mr Justice Baker condemned Manchester City Council for “a deplorable failure to take into account the close relationship [between E and his foster mother], the need to sustain that relationship, and a consequent failure to arrange any contact for several months between this vulnerable young man and the person who had been his carer – his mother figure – for most of his life.”

Mr Baker said he had “formed the very clear view that the responsibility for what had gone wrong rested at a much higher level within the local authority, and that one of the most damning criticisms of Manchester City Council in this case was it had seemingly failed to provide any or any adequate training to its staff”.

Manchester City Council said its actions were obligatory. A spokesman said: “Serious concerns were raised about this young man’s welfare and we had an obligation to act. It was not an easy decision to keep ‘E’ at the home where he was receiving respite care, but his welfare was our primary consideration.

“While we strongly believe we did the right thing, the judge has made it clear that we went about it the wrong way. We regret this and have now put in place measures so that in future similar cases we will follow the correct procedures.

In a statement, the council said: “Nothing we did caused any pain or suffering to ‘E’ and indeed he appeared to thrive while at the residential care home and supported accommodation.”

E’s foster mother, however, disagrees: “I know for a fact it did him harm. Because if it did him no harm why was he on 10 milligrams of Haloperidol, an anti psychotic drug? Why did they drug him like that?”

The young man is now back with his foster family where his foster mother says he is thriving.