The Local Authority v B
[2024] EWHC 2477 (Fam)
The Local Authority v A
13 August 2024
[2024] EWHC 2476 (Fam)
High Court
A 14-year-old boy is in danger because of his involvement with criminals. There are no suitable safe places for him, so the court allowed him to be placed in a special home with close supervision for six months. This was done even though the home isn't fully licensed yet, because the boy's safety is more important.
Key Facts
- •14-year-old A, exhibiting violent and risky behavior, including involvement in organized crime and drug dealing, is in an unsuitable unregulated placement.
- •Local Authority seeks a Deprivation of Liberty Declaration (DLD) to place A in an unregistered children's home, citing imperative conditions of necessity.
- •A's current placement is inadequate, failing to keep him safe from harm and prevent absconding.
- •The proposed unregistered placement is costly (£12,000 per week), reflecting the broader crisis in children's residential care provision in the UK.
- •A's father supports the Local Authority's application, while the Children's Guardian advocates for a review after initial contact with A.
Legal Principles
Local authorities have a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in their care (Children Act 1989, s. 22(3)).
Deby City Council and others [2021] EWHC 2931 (Fam)
Placement of children under 16 in unregulated settings is subject to restrictions (Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (England) Regulations 2010, as amended in 2021).
Tameside MBC and others [2012] EWHC 2472 (Fam)
The High Court's inherent jurisdiction allows for DLDs in unregistered placements if imperative conditions of necessity exist to protect a child from significant harm.
Re T (A child) [2021] UKSC 35, Re A Mother v Derby City Council [2021] EWCA Civ 1867, Tameside MBC v AM and Others [2021] EWAC 2472
A DLD must be necessary and proportionate, safeguarding and promoting the child's welfare while balancing Article 5 (liberty) and Article 8 (private and family life) rights under the ECHR.
None explicitly stated, but inherent in the judge's reasoning.
Outcomes
The court granted the Local Authority's application for a DLD.
Imperative conditions of necessity exist due to A's severe risk of harm from organized crime and his current placement's inadequacy.
The DLD includes specific restrictions (3:1 supervision, confinement measures, regulated physical restraint, and monitoring of communication devices).
These restrictions are deemed necessary and proportionate to protect A while acknowledging his Article 5 and 8 rights.
The DLD's duration is six months, allowing for review and potential extension within ongoing care proceedings.
This timeframe balances the need for long-term intervention with the absence of prior consultation with A and the risk of demotivation with extended periods.