Professional Dilemma 4

Experience tells me that this series of 'professional dilemma's' often produces comment ranging from the incredulous to the broadly sympathetic, mixed with a degree of surprise as to exactly what sort of scenarios probation officers can find themselves involved in. Painful though it sometimes is, I nevertheless feel it's worthwhile doing in the interests of explaining a bit more to the general public exactly what the work can involve.

Although what follows happened some time ago, it continues to have an effect on me to this day. It was a seminal moment in my career and I've always regarded it as having been a metaphor for the society within which it occurred, up there with the likes of 'Cathy Come Home' or 'Boys From the Blackstuff' as social commentary. Whether something similar would or could happen today is a moot point because so much of the broad context within which it occurred has changed significantly, not least the degree to which the modern probation service has moved away from it's former social work-orientated ethos. Sadly, I'm not sure it would even register on our radar nowadays.

Lets call him John. When he arrived with us as a case at age 17 he was already severely damaged by society. He had been a troublesome, difficult and challenging child and as a result his parents felt they had no alternative to placing him in the care of the Local Authority. Now there's a misnomer if ever there was one 'in care'. Experience has amply demonstrated to me over the years just how damaging the 'care' system can be for many young people. To misquote Philip Larkin, if family's haven't done it already 'care' will. 'They f*ck you up they do'. 

Any probation officer will know only too well what harm can be caused by child abuse. As a result society has procedures for removing that child into 'care', but then often compounds the damage, but this time in the name of the State. It really shocked me when Martin Narey a year or two back came out publicly making a case for more kids to go into care when he was still director of Barnado's, saying that this was preferable. 

Anyway, it was obvious that John had been very badly affected by his time in several large children's homes and since leaving had been living a feral, nomadic existence. He had become addicted to glue and other solvents which made his moods and behaviour unpredictable. He was beginning to pose society a problem because of his rough sleeping and low level criminal activity. In those days it was inevitable and entirely appropriate that the probation service would become involved.

Despite his challenging behaviour and multitude of needs, John had an engaging personality that quickly made him a significant part of the life of the office. Remember these were the days of day centres and drop-in facilities for clients and being homeless, he made full use of what was available in a very constructive way. As the months rolled by we tried in vain to settle John in numerous hostels, shelters and housing projects, but always to no avail given his increasingly challenging and erratic behaviour. The team became convinced that only independent living accommodation with support was likely to be successful and I argued strongly for a referral to a clinical psychologist in order to try and get to the bottom of the trauma he was suspected of having experienced. 

I remember the day well. Real progress was being made. The housing department had finally been bullied into offering John a tatty flat and miraculously I had succeeded in getting him to the top of the list to see a psychologist. The first meeting had been a revelation to behold. Although extremely unorthodox, I was asked to be present throughout because sadly the female consultant felt scared of John. The next meeting was due, however a phone call from the Court Team informed me that he was in custody but likely to be bailed. Somewhat unusually the custody sergeant agreed to a request not to release him until I got to the station. 

John was pleased to see me and seemed his normal chatty self. It was only a ten minute walk back to the office and I explained that the next appointment with the psychologist was at 2pm, again a short walk away. All seemed well, until he suddenly insisted we went via the casualty department of the local hospital. He explained he had been there most of the night and until his unwanted presence had triggered his arrest. He would not be dissuaded from going to casualty and became quite agitated so I had no alternative but to tag along, whereupon the reason for the detour became obvious. Hidden behind some seats was a can of thinners which John proceeded to put in his pocket. Of course I made plain how very disappointed I was with his actions, but thinners is not an illegal substance, there was no evidence it had been stolen and I had no authority to remove it from him. 

Of course we were aware that John had been addicted to solvents for some time. As far as we knew he had never used the substance when at the day centre and certainly never within sight of any staff. I believed that the absolute priority of the day was to get John back to see the psychologist and the expert counselling that I knew he needed. Sadly he never made the appointment and was pronounced dead by 1.30pm. The subsequent post mortem found that he had died of heart failure as a result of the sustained abuse of solvents. He was just 19. Although the Coroner eventually recorded a verdict of Accidental Death, I have always felt that in the final analysis it was the State that had failed John.