Social workers dropped a 13-year-old drink-dependent drug user from their books and did not tell other care agencies before he died from an overdose, an inquest jury learned today.

A letter confirming the move was written only weeks after they were first asked to help the parents of Ed Barry after he became uncontrollable at home in Gravesend in 2009.

It was revealed by the family's barrister, Brian Cummins, during
questioning of the one care worker who Ed would talk to today.

But the worker, Patrick Grant, a part-time expert in adolescent care,
said it was one of several letters, emails and comments from Kent
social services that he never saw.

An inquest jury is investigating the reasons why Ed, of Pelham Road
South, died from a mixed overdose of drugs and drink eight months after carers first became aware of his slide out of control.

Mr Grant revealed he had not see any assessments of Ed's behaviour and was unaware a child psychiatrist had recommended he should be kept in secure accommodation.

The boy's parents had been seeking respite from his behaviour, but Mr Grant said he was unaware of the recommendation.

He told the inquest he would have based his work at the Adolescent Resource Centre (ARC) in Gravesend on the assessment.

Mr Cummins commented: "It paints a picture, doesn't it."

At some point during the year Kent social services worked on Ed's case, but it was not until five months after he first encountered the boy that Mr Grant realised they were involved.

They declined to attend any case meetings with the ARC staff, he said.

Earlier, jurors were told there was no set procedure for reporting a young teenager was injecting heroin.

Mr Grant said Ed had admitted injecting drugs when they were talking in October 2009.

He did not say what he used, but from the evidence he thought it was heroin.

Chris Sutton-Mattocks, counsel for the coroner at the jury inquest in Gravesend, asked Mr grant: "Did you have a duty to tell the police that you suspected a 13-year-old was taking drugs?"

Mr Grant replied: "I am not aware of any categorical point of requirement, but I was not averse to doing it, and had done so with others."

He told the coroner's jury he first talked to Ed in March 2009.

Ed is said to have frequently missed appointments, but had said he would not work with Mr Grant if he did not get him out of his parents' home.

He explained the most important thing for him was to get away from his parents for two or three months "to allow their relationship to improve."

He also said he was frustrated because no one was listening to him.

As the summer progressed, the boy is said to have gone from using cannabis and beer, to self-harming himself with many cigarette burns on his arms, injecting codeine and taking a variety of other drugs.

Mr Grant said he did not consider it was too much concern that he was staying out until 6am.

"The fact was he came back so that was very positive even though it was very late," he said. "At least he was coming back at that time."

He also considered he was bisexual, said Mr Grant.

Mr Sutton-Mattocks asked: "Did you ask him about his sexual orientation?"

Mr Grant replied: "I believe I asked him what was the impact on him socially and what would his peers think about it.

"He seemed to have too much confidence about it at that stage."

He explained that Ed would sensationalise everything.

"He said he went to the Gay Pride Festival in London. He wasn't worried about his sexual orientation."

Mr Sutton-Mattocks asked: "It put him more at risk, obviously, but at this stage what of the other problems - did it concern you?"

Mr Grant replied: "Not necessarily, no."

The inquest, expected to last two weeks, continues.