“as follows”

The coroner’s concerns

as follows. – 1. No evidence was seen that recipients of a ‘Claires Law’ Domestic Violence Disclosure are treated as being of greater vulnerability, or at a higher risk, when Child Services are undertaking investigations regarding the provision of children’s care, and removal of the children from a parent is being considered. It was heard in evidence that the Social Worker appointed to this case, quite properly focussed on what was in the best interest of Kate’s children. There was however no formal system in place to provide additional support for Kate herself, even though she was known to be vulnerable. 2. It was identified that when Kate was informed there may be an application to the Family Court to place her children into care (using the Public Law Outline process), the impact of such a decision on her mental health, or physical wellbeing was not taken into consideration. As a recipient of a ‘Claires Law’ Domestic Violence Disclosure, it was acknowledged that she was of greater vulnerability, but no system is currently in place which allows a risk assessment to be undertaken at the time the Public Law Outline notification is given to a parent. The day after Kate was told of the Public Law Outline notification, she intentionally crashed her car in an unsuccessful attempt to end her life, requiring 4 weeks in an Intensive Treatment Unit to recover from the serious injuries she received. 3. Once the Public Law Outline process was initiated, independent legal advice was provided, and a voluntary sector advocate supported Kate through the legal process. However, Katie received no independent support from Social Services, and had no independent professional to undertake a holistic review of her case, in light of her known circumstances and vulnerabilities. It was heard that mental health professionals had assumed Kate had a Social Worker of her own, and expressed surprise when finding out that she did not. 4. Safeguarding referrals made the Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub in respect of Kate’s children were viewed in isolation, with no system in place to the assess any additional risks posed to Kate herself. There were no additional steps, or risk assessments undertaken in relation to Kate, even though she was a recipient of a ‘Claires Law’ Domestic Violence Disclosure and therefore known to be more vulnerable. 5. In 2022 it was recognised by a Clinical Psychologist that Kate could benefit from Schema-based Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, which is not routinely available on the NHS. The psychological review had been ordered by the Family Court, and funding for this course needed to be applied for. Applying for funding involved requests to the Legal Aid Board, Integrated Care Board (Individual Funding Request), Wellbeing Service and Social Services, none of whom provided the funding, with each suggesting contacting one of the other agencies involved. An experienced mental health clinician with many years’ experience described the ‘whole route as very complicated’ and ‘it was difficult to find a solution for funding’. In addition, funding was very rarely made available, and as a service they were usually unable to meet patient expectations (who believe a treatment might be made available), where in reality it almost certainly would not be available.

An extract. Read the full report, including the circumstances of the death, on the Courts and Tribunals Judiciary website.

Source

judiciary.uk, Prevention of Future Deaths reports, 2024-0295

Added to Minute Book

8 Oct 2026

Reuse

We show short extracts and link to the original. We don’t host the full report.

Something wrong, such as a date or who it was sent to? Report a mistake

Is this report about someone close to you? You can ask us to remove names from our pages.

Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Source: Courts and Tribunals Judiciary, judiciary.uk. Open Government Licence v3.0