I think in some cases it is important to read the narrative behind the narrative. In this instance what you’re looking at is a wellness check. The door has been barricaded shut and there’s justification for the breaking down of the door.

This young lady is going through a tough time and her mental stability is very much in question. The calmness you’re seeing is underpinned by a swirling mass of feelings evidenced by her crying. If I were the caseworker for this child, I would’ve instructed the police to do a wellness check as well.

And it’s important to understand the story behind the story and to investigate further. Nobody gets bounced around the foster care system because they can’t get into the bathroom they want at school, though that might be a chosen ideological conflict ground. Caseworkers don’t move kids on spurious grounds (for one thing it’s too expensive).

I would suggest, in this instance, without being able to look in the file we should tread carefully with our judgment. If this is someone already in the system (and I think she is) then you’re looking at someone who is potentially very volatile and whose map of human relationships and how they work could be skewed somewhat.

Such people may present with very simple narratives - but I can assure you from mountains of case work, this is usually not a cut and dry issue. The presenting issue (in this case education provision) is rarely the issue which needs to be resolved. For what it’s worth, this looks like either an adoption or long-term foster care breakdown and what you’re seeing is denial, anger and a (somewhat healthy) self-soothing behaviour with the potential for dissociation and a possible history of self harm.

It’s a difficult watch and I hope this young lady gets the help she needs. I don’t believe that help will come from James Finn…. And I would make a case that he and other outspoken activists haven’t helped this young lady at all. They’ve simply enhanced her binary positioning and failed to model suitable negotiating skills for her.