CHILD J DOMESTIC HOMICIDE REVIEW and …

1 CHILD J - DOMESTIC HOMICIDE REVIEW and serious CASE REVIEW (combined) Report into the death of CHILD J aged 17 1 1. Introduction .. 3 The circumstances that led to undertaking this REVIEW .. 3 Parallel processes .. 5 2. The Circumstances of CHILD J s 6 3. Chronology of Key Events .. 7 Significant Historical information .. 7 December 2010 to December 2011: Agency involvement with CHILD J .. 7 February 2011 January 2012: Involvement with Adult L and CHILD M .. 10 February 2012 to February 2013: CHILD J .. 12 February 2012 to February 2013: Adult L and CHILD 13 February 2013 to December 2013: CHILD J, Adult L and CHILD M .. 15 November 2013 to December 2013 .. 21 4 Contribution of CHILD J s Family and Friend .. 24 CHILD J s mother and maternal grandfather.

2 24 CHILD J s sister (S) .. 25 CHILD J s friend .. 27 5 Contributions from Adult L and CHILD M.. 27 Adult L .. 27 CHILD M .. 28 Adult L and CHILD M s family .. 29 6. Analysis and appraisal of agencies practice .. 29 Introduction .. 29 What actions were taken to safeguard CHILD J and how well agencies worked on their own and together.. 30 Initial Involvement of Children s Services .. 31 The multi-agency approach .. 33 Identification and assessment of risk posed by Adult L and how well agencies worked on their own and together.. 37 Adult L s early development and experience of being a Looked After CHILD .. 37 Understanding the risk posed by Adult L .. 40 Identification and assessment of the risk and needs of CHILD M and how well agencies worked on their own and together.. 45 Effectiveness of multi-agency support provided to CHILD J to minimise risk posed by the perpetrator.

3 47 The contribution of CSC .. 47 The role of the Police .. 50 The role of BCHA .. 53 The role of the school .. 55 The role of CAMHS .. 56 How the multi-agency approach worked .. 57 Summary of Key Findings .. 60 7. Concluding Remarks .. 61 8: Recommendations .. 64 A: Working effectively with young people .. 64 Multi-Agency Recommendation 1:.. 64 Multi-Agency Recommendation 2:.. 64 B: Young people and DOMESTIC abuse .. 64 Multi-Agency Recommendation 3:.. 64 Multi-Agency Recommendation 4:.. 64 Multi-Agency Recommendation 5:.. 64 C: Working with young people who pose a risk to others .. 64 Multi-Agency Recommendation 6:.. 64 Contents 2 D: Additional learning .. 65 Multi-Agency Recommendation 7:.. 65 Appendix A: 66 Appendix B: Professional Identifiers .. 67 Appendix C: Process and Methodology for the REVIEW .

4 68 1 Timescale for undertaking this REVIEW .. 68 2 Confidentiality .. 69 3 Dissemination of the Report .. 69 4 Purpose and Terms of Reference for the REVIEW .. 69 5 Methodology .. 70 6 Involvement of CHILD J s Family and Friends.. 73 7. Involvement of Adult L, CHILD M and their family .. 74 8. Terms of Reference .. 75 1. What actions were taken to safeguard CHILD J and how well agencies worked on their own and together, where relevant .. 75 2. Identification and assessment of risk posed by Adult L and how well agencies worked on their own and together, where relevant .. 75 3. Identification and assessment of the risk and needs of CHILD M and how well agencies worked on their own and together, where relevant .. 76 4. Effectiveness of multi-agency support provided to CHILD J to minimise risk posed by the perpetrator.

5 76 5. Policies and procedures .. 76 6. Co-operation and engagement of the services with the parents and CHILD .. 77 7. The extent to which equalities issues were addressed .. 77 In addition the REVIEW will: .. 77 Appendix D: Individual Agency Recommendations .. 78 Bournemouth Church Housing Association .. 78 Home Group (housing) .. 78 National Probation Service .. 78 Oxfordshire County Council Children s Social Care and Early Intervention Services (CSC) .. 79 Theme 1- Safeguarding adolescents .. 79 CSC should:.. 79 EIS should: .. 79 Theme 2- Managing Young People who present serious risk to others .. 79 CEF should: .. 79 Theme 3 - CHILD s voice and advocacy .. 79 CSC should ensure: .. 79 Theme 4- Service Re-Design .. 80 Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust .. 80 Oxfordshire Clinical Commissioning Group (GPs) .. 80 Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust.

6 80 Reducing the Risk of DOMESTIC Violence (IDVA service) .. 81 Schools and Special Educational Needs .. 81 South Oxfordshire District Council Housing (SODC) .. 82 South Oxfordshire Housing Association (SOHA) .. 82 Thames Valley Police .. 82 Young Addaction Oxfordshire .. 84 Appendix E: Letter from Home Office dated .. 85 Bibliography .. 87 3 1. Introduction The circumstances that led to undertaking this REVIEW This REVIEW was commissioned jointly by the Oxfordshire Safeguarding Children Board (OSCB) and the South and Vale Community Safety Partnership, (S&VCSP) following the HOMICIDE of a young woman, CHILD J, who was resident in Oxfordshire at the time of her death. CHILD J was 17 years old and as such defined as a CHILD for safeguarding purposes. At the time this REVIEW was commissioned CHILD J s ex-partner, Adult L, had been charged with her murder.

7 Adult L s brother, CHILD M, had been charged with a related offence. CHILD M was 17 years old at the time, and therefore also defined as a CHILD . The Oxfordshire Safeguarding Children Board s serious Case REVIEW Sub Group concluded that the case had met the criteria for a serious Case REVIEW (SCR) as identified in Working Together to Safeguard Children 20131, in that there was information that: a) abuse or neglect of a CHILD is known or suspected; and (b) either (i) the CHILD has died; or (ii) the CHILD has been seriously harmed and there is cause for concern as to the way in which the authority, their Board partners or other relevant persons have worked together to safeguard the CHILD . The South and Vale Community Safety Partnership also identified that the circumstances of CHILD J s death met the criteria for undertaking a DOMESTIC HOMICIDE REVIEW (DHR) under Section 9(3) of the DOMESTIC Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004, in that the death resulted from violence caused by a person with whom she had been in an intimate personal relationship.

8 The REVIEW takes as its starting point the government definition of DOMESTIC abuse as follows: Any incident or pattern of incidents of controlling, coercive or threatening behaviour, violence or abuse between those aged 16 or over who are or have been intimate partners or family members, regardless of gender or sexuality. This can encompass, but is not limited to, the following types of abuse: Psychological Physical Sexual Financial Emotional Controlling behaviour is: a range of acts designed to make a person subordinate and/or dependent by isolating them from sources of support, exploiting their resources and capacities for personal gain, depriving them of the means needed for independence, resistance and escape and regulating their everyday behaviour.

9 1 Working Together: HM Govt 2013 (since replaced by Working Together 2015) 4 Coercive behaviour is: an act or a pattern of acts of assault, threats, humiliation and intimidation or other abuse that is used to harm, punish, or frighten their victim. A decision was therefore made by the Chairs of the Safeguarding Children Board and Community Safety Partnership to convene one REVIEW combining the requirements of both a DOMESTIC HOMICIDE REVIEW and a serious Case REVIEW . Separate consideration was given by the OSCB as to whether the criteria for a SCR had also been met in relation to CHILD M. Whilst it was decided that the circumstances did not meet the criteria for a separate SCR in relation to CHILD M, the REVIEW was asked to include consideration of his circumstances as a young person who may have experienced harm in his own right.

10 This combined REVIEW will examine the responses of all the relevant agencies that had contact with CHILD J, Adult L and CHILD M. Given some differences in the requirements of the two REVIEW processes, the following timeframes were agreed: SCR: 1st December 2010 to late December 2013 DHR: 1st February 2011 to late December 2013 The starting point in relation to the SCR requirement was the time at which Children s Social Care Services were first involved with CHILD J on her move to live with her mother in Oxfordshire. The starting point in relation to the DHR was agreed as this represented the time at which relevant agencies first became aware that CHILD J was in a relationship with Adult L. The end point was chosen as this was the date when it was known that CHILD J had been killed.