UK law firm calls on schools to protect young people with complex needs

Law firm JMP Solicitors is calling for schools and governing bodies to protect the fundamental rights of vulnerable young people – by adhering to regulations, educating staff appropriately and providing transparency into the treatment of children with complex needs in their care.
 
Ian Howard, managing director with 20 years’ experience at JMP Solicitors, has seen a significant increase in cases of professional negligence in schools in the past year – showcasing instances of significant neglect and mistreatment, highlighting explicitly the failure of special schools in providing the correct level of care.
 
This call for action also follows a number of national headlines highlighting the subject in recent months – with some cases coming to light due to hard evidence such as CCTV which reveal coercive restraint, isolation and segregation methods.
 
In one particular case, JMP Solicitors won a settlement of over £30,500 for a child who was subject to 19 incidents of physical restraint, locked in a room and illegally excluded.
 
These instances of serious physical and psychological harm also bring into question whether schools are being regulated effectively, or if regulations, frameworks or laws in place are enough to protect children with social emotional and mental health (SEMH) needs.

In response to concerns that schools were not monitoring and recording their use of restraint correctly, The Equality and Human Rights Commission launched an inquiry earlier in the year into the use of restraint in schools.[3]
 
The report confirmed that: ‘While some schools are doing their best to support their pupils, they need more help to understand: What constitutes restraint, what they should record, how analysis can help support pupils and staff.’
 
Previous to this inquiry in May 2019, the ‘Human Rights Framework for Restraint’ was published by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, calling for policy makers and schools to use the guidance as a tool for education and a change in practices.

Responding to the increase and nature of cases JMP Solicitors have been instructed to represent in recent months, Ian Howard commented: “Abuse in this area continues despite the existing framework outlining how teachers and carers should respond to behaviour that challenges. The framework does not appear to be enough.

“It is vital that adults charged with the care of vulnerable young people understand that behaviour that challenges is not chosen behaviour; the child is not simply being ‘naughty’.

“Some children and young people with learning disabilities, autistic spectrum conditions or mental health difficulties may react to distressing or confusing situations by displaying behaviour that is challenging and due to this behaviour, they are at more risk of sanctions such as restrictive intervention.

“Children with SEMH needs are particularly vulnerable not just because of their age but because of their SEMH needs. For example, a child with an attachment disorder will seek the help of an adult who may be the very person mistreating the child.

“All behaviour has a purpose.  Challenging behaviour is a signal that the needs of an individual are not being met. The carer of a child with SEMH must understand the exact needs of individuals in their care so that they do not just deal with behaviour that challenges by using the short-term fix of coercive restraint, isolation, and segregation.

“It is important to note that the international human rights law states children are entitled to special care and assistance and the right to liberty, education and bodily integrity at all times.

“Schools have a duty of care to children – and need to be recording their instances of restraint appropriately and transparently in order to help educate staff and gain a better understanding of what is applicable to the children’s needs.”
In June 2019, the government published further guidance [6] on the use of restraint and physical interventions in schools which recognised that the personal costs to children and young people’s development and welfare and to staff from the use of restraint are well documented.

These include damage to children’s physical, psychological, social and emotional wellbeing and to their neuro-cognitive, behavioural and emotional development. With families and carers of young people stating that ‘restraint and restrictive intervention are traumatising.’
 
JMP encourages schools to refer to the guidelines and to educate their staff correctly to ensure they are providing children with the level of care which they are entitled to by law.  

They also comment: “As a UK law firm dealing with negligence cases, we condemn the damaging use of coercive restraint, isolation, and segregation of children in special schools.   

These children should not be subject to abuse because they experience the world in a particular way which is often perceived as different and requiring correction or sanction.  The way they live, learn and experience the world is a natural and normal variations of the human condition.

A person who learns and process information in a different way can no more conform to what others perceive as normal than stop breathing.

“We encourage teachers, parents and carers to come forward in any instance where they suspect a case for abuse in these settings to ensure the failures are being highlighted and to protect the fundamental rights of the most vulnerable in our society, as they continue to be failed.
 
“Solutions for providing better care of vulnerable young people requires care givers to walk alongside the young person not to rise above them in judgment.   There needs to be not just an exaltation of a chid centred approach but such an approach in reality  to include better monitoring, transparency and recording of any restraint procedures, implementation of regulation and guidance of restraint procedures, skilling up of care givers and teachers to implement education, health and plans care (EHCP) for individuals properly and encouraging staff to look at the source of behaviour, instead of resorting to restraint methods which can be detrimental to vulnerable young people in need of better care to ensure their needs are being met.”