Recurring concern

Unreliable Section 17 support and discharge-planning arrangements for children in need

First to latest report 30 Jan 2013 — 3 Oct 2016

Reports that mention this concern: 2
Times this concern has been raised: 2
Stated actions linked to this concern: 3

What this concern includes

Includes only assertions that directly instantiate the manually reviewed condition ‘Unreliable Section 17 support and discharge-planning arrangements for children in need’ and satisfy this evidence boundary: Both reports directly concern failures in the named Section 17 Children Act support process, but only one establishes an away-from-home placement and family-contact support. Remove that unsupported shared qualifier while retaining the specific statutory process and the distinct support-assessment and discharge-planning manifestations.

What is not included

Excludes general child safeguarding, Child in Need or social-care assessment failures where Section 17 support is not the identified process.
Excludes ordinary family-contact communication failures where no Section 17 support or planning deficiency is identified.
Excludes failures to provide unrelated care packages, accommodation or placements after Section 17 support needs have been assessed.
Excludes generic travel, funding or social-services coordination deficiencies unless they directly impair Section 17 support for maintaining family contact.
Excludes manifestations outside the manually reviewed boundary: Both reports directly concern failures in the named Section 17 Children Act support process, but only one establishes an away-from-home placement and family-contact support. Remove that unsupported shared qualifier while retaining the specific statutory process and the distinct support-assessment and discharge-planning manifestations.

Trends

Reports over time

Reports mentioning this concern, over time

Reports about this concern issued each year.

* 2026 is projected from reports observed to 7 Sep 2026.

Most frequent recipients

Reports about this concern sent to each recipient.

Department of Health and Social Care1

London Borough of Hounslow1

Oldham Borough Council1

Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust1

Reports and published responses 2 reports

See individual reports that have raised this concern, and the actions taken in response

3 Oct2016
West Sussex
Concerns raised1
1. Failure to assess and provide support for family contact when children are placed far from home
This report raised 4 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Linked response

Mary Harpley, Chief Executive
Stated actions 3
1. Mary Harpley, Chief Executive
  Update Thresholds Guidance and Assessment Protocols to address duties for children placed away from home, mental health inpatient care, assessments, and family contact.
2. Mary Harpley, Chief Executive
  Publish and maintain the updated threshold guidance on the council, safeguarding board, and Children’s Social Care procedure websites.
3. Mary Harpley, Chief Executive
  Disseminate the updated information across Children’s Social Care and deliver refresher briefings to relevant managers, practitioners, social workers, and staff.
AI-generated summary

Amy El-Keria · Prevention of Future Deaths report

This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

Report summary

Amy El-Keria, aged 14, died on 13 November 2012 after tying a ligature around her neck and suspending herself from a radiator while receiving inpatient mental health care. The inquest identified concerns about staffing levels being insufficient to provide the one-to-one support in her care plan and the shortage of acute mental health beds for young people close to home, limiting family support.

Read the report on judiciary.uk
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to assess and provide support for family contact when children are placed far from home
Wider context from the report
“(2) Social Services clearly have a vital role to play in ensuring family contact where a child is placed far from their family home where difficulties arise. There was no assessment carried out to assess whether there was any need to provide support to a child in need under Section 17 Children Act 1989 even when Amy’s mother had specifically raised the difficulties she was having with contact with Amy, including the cost of travel, with her support worker. ”
Source location
Amy El-Keria · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 1 · concerns
Open source report
Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Update Thresholds Guidance and Assessment Protocols to address duties for children placed away from home, mental health inpatient care, assessments, and family contact.

Verbatim wording from the response
“The London Borough of Hounslow has re-drafted and updated its Thresholds Guidance & Assessment Protocols to ensure specific reference is made to these matters. Advice was sought from Mental Health professionals as part of this process. The London Borough of Hounslow will ensure that this information is disseminated across Children’s Social Care, and that refresher and update briefing will be delivered to all relevant social workers and staff. The information will be disseminated across Children’s Social Care teams the week of 28/11/2016 and Heads of Service and Team Managers will ensure that all managers and practitioners are fully briefed. Information will be shared by Heads of Service at their next Management Meetings and with social work staff at their next Team Meetings.”

Source location
Response from London Borough of Hounslow
Page 1 · response
Published 3 October 2016
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Publish and maintain the updated threshold guidance on the council, safeguarding board, and Children’s Social Care procedure websites.

Verbatim wording from the response
“The threshold document is available to the public on the council’s website and specifically on its Local Safeguarding Children’s Board site. The document is public facing but is primarily aimed at assisting those professionals working with children to understand how thresholds are applied and how child protection professionals make decisions in respect of appropriate action. Assistance to children in need under S17 of the Children Act 1989 for children placed in a hospital or other setting is referenced at section 3.9 (pages 12-14) under the headings ‘Children Receiving Tier 4 Inpatient Provision’ and ‘Children Act 1989 Section 85 & 86 Duties’.”

Source location
Response from London Borough of Hounslow
Page 2 · response
Published 3 October 2016
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Disseminate the updated information across Children’s Social Care and deliver refresher briefings to relevant managers, practitioners, social workers, and staff.

Verbatim wording from the response
“The London Borough of Hounslow has re-drafted and updated its Thresholds Guidance & Assessment Protocols to ensure specific reference is made to these matters. Advice was sought from Mental Health professionals as part of this process. The London Borough of Hounslow will ensure that this information is disseminated across Children’s Social Care, and that refresher and update briefing will be delivered to all relevant social workers and staff. The information will be disseminated across Children’s Social Care teams the week of 28/11/2016 and Heads of Service and Team Managers will ensure that all managers and practitioners are fully briefed. Information will be shared by Heads of Service at their next Management Meetings and with social work staff at their next Team Meetings.”

Source location
Response from London Borough of Hounslow
Page 1 · response
Published 3 October 2016
Open published response
30 Jan2013
Manchester South
Concerns raised1
1. Failure to hold a Section 17 discharge planning meeting
This report raised 12 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
No linked response statements
No respondent-stated action or position is linked to these concerns in the published data.
AI-generated summary

Gareth Mark Slater · Prevention of Future Deaths report

This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

Report summary

Gareth Mark Slater, who had a history of bipolar affective disorder and had been discharged from hospital into his own accommodation, was found in the River Medlock on 31 March 2013 after apparently falling from Bardsley Bridge. The Inquest concluded that he died from drowning and multiple injuries, with bipolar affective disorder recorded as a contributing condition, and found no evidence of an intention to end his life. Concerns included inadequate discharge planning, lack of a care plan and follow-up arrangements, insufficient assessment of his ability to live independently, and poor preparation of his accommodation.

Read the report on judiciary.uk
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to hold a Section 17 discharge planning meeting
Wider context from the report
“2. There was no Section 17 discharge planning meeting. ”
Source location
Gareth Mark Slater · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 2 · concerns
Open source report