The family of a ‘deeply loved’ Croydon teenager who died the same day he was released from detention at a remand hearing say he could have been saved.

And a newly released report shows professionals could and should have done more to help him to stop his mental health deteriorating before he fell into a life of gangs and violence.

The 16-year-old boy suffered fatal injuries in a crash between a moped and a police car in the early hours of July 16, 2017. He died at Croydon University Hospital the following day.

He was looked after by Croydon Council and had been living with his extended family in the Midlands.

At the time of his death, he was a gang member and had been known to social care agencies from a young age.

On the day of the fatal crash, Child Q had been released on conditional bail at a remand hearing for breach of his court order.

His family and professionals asked that a curfew and tagging was imposed, but this was not put in place, meaning he returned to London where the fatal accident happened.

On Monday, May 13, the Croydon Safeguarding Children Board (CSCB) published a Serious Case Review of the boy,  referred to only as Child Q, which was commissioned in September 2017 to investigate his death.

The report states: “Mother, aunt and grandmother are extremely angry and upset that an electronically monitored curfew was not requested at his final court appearance and strongly believe that if the curfew had been reinstated on that day, Child Q would not have travelled to London and therefore

would not have lost his life.”

His family believe that professionals did not do enough to address emotional and behavioural challenges the teenager expressed throughout his life.

His mother does not accept that her son was a gang member, but Child Q’s father told the review that he believes he was an “influential member of a local gang”.

‘Where were you when I was six?’

The in-depth report details how the boy had an unstable background.

Growing up, Child Q lived with his mum. His dad was in and out of prison throughout his life.

Child Q was deeply loved by his family, and well-liked by professionals.

He excelled at football and was a likeable, engaging boy. But aged 13, he was a victim of crime and, shortly afterwards, committed his first offence.

He often went missing and his first conviction put a stop to his aspirations of pursuing a career in football.

As he grew older, he regularly came into contact with the police and had criminal convictions,.

He was a gang member and agencies found it “a significant challenge to keep him safe within the community”.

Sadly Child Q understood that his high risk behaviour could end very badly.

The report adds: “But he appeared resigned to this being almost inevitable and the role of the gang in his life was very important to him.

“During the latter stages of professional involvement, Child Q asked a professional ‘where were you when I was six?’ Although it is unclear

exactly what he meant by this, it was understood it may have been a recognition of the help his family needed when he was young.”

Deterioration in mental health ‘could have been avoided’

At the age of nine, Child Q’s school made an urgent referral to CAMHS (child and adolescent mental health service).

But after attempts were made by CAMHS to contact the family, the

case was closed. Later, Child Q was the subject of a psychiatric assessment when it was identified that he had various disorders that urgently required treatment.

The report states that a deterioration in his mental health and emotional wellbeing could have been avoided if he had received help at this time.

And it recommends that CAMHS reviews its current models to make sure preventative services for children can be provided in their early years.

What will be done now?

Di Smith, the independent chair of the CSCB, said that the review asks whether more could have been done to keep Child Q safe.

She adds that services were not able to provide the support to address his issues or change the trajectory of his life.

With his situation constantly changing, agencies struggled to keep up.

“Whilst the professional network had a wealth of experience, skills, knowledge and expertise, they were frequently not equipped with the tools they needed to keep him safe, at the time they needed them. For example, there was a particular challenge in obtaining secure placements for highly vulnerable children like Child Q,” said Ms Smith.

“This review questions whether more could have been done to support and divert Child Q at an earlier age, and there were times during his early years, and his education, when his needs were not met. As a young child, he did not experience stability at home or in education; during his primary school years, he did not receive the mental health support he needed. During his adolescence he did not receive the treatment and care he needed.”

The chair added that it is not possible to know what difference this would have made but notes the importance of strengthening families and education in children’s lives.

Ms Smith concluded: “The learning from both will be invaluable as we go forward, as a strong and cohesive partnership determined to take a preventative approach by strengthening families and helping our young people to make positive choices.”