The Local Authority v A
[2024] EWHC 2476 (Fam)
The Local Authority v B
13 August 2024
[2024] EWHC 2477 (Fam)
High Court
A troubled 14-year-old boy was placed in a home that wasn't legally allowed because there was nowhere else to put him. A judge ruled it was okay to keep him there with close supervision, even though it restricts his freedom, because it's safer than letting him go. The judge made it clear this was only allowed because of a special legal rule for extremely serious situations.
Key Facts
- •14-year-old B is subject to a Local Authority application for further Deprivation of Liberty (DOL) provisions.
- •B has a history of extremely challenging behavior, including involvement in organized crime, violence, and self-harm.
- •B is currently placed in an unregistered Ofsted children's home, making the placement unlawful.
- •No alternative registered placements are available.
- •The Local Authority seeks authorization for various restrictive measures, including sleep monitoring.
Legal Principles
Local Authorities have a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in their care (Children Act 1989, s.22(3)).
Children Act 1989, s.22(3); Deby City Council and others [2021] EWHC 2931 (Fam)
Local Authorities can place children in registered children's homes or other arrangements complying with regulations (Children Act 1989, s.22C).
Children Act 1989, s.22C; Deby City Council and others [2021] EWHC 2931 (Fam)
The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court can be invoked to authorize DOL in unregulated placements for children under 16 if imperative conditions of necessity exist (Re T (A child) [2021] UKSC 35; Tameside MBC v AM and Others [2021] EWAC 2472).
Re T (A child) [2021] UKSC 35; Tameside MBC v AM and Others [2021] EWAC 2472; Re A Mother v Derby City Council [2021] EWCA Civ 1867
Any interference with Article 5 (right to liberty) and Article 8 (right to private and family life) rights must be necessary and proportionate.
ECHR Article 5 and 8
Outcomes
The court granted the Local Authority's application for a DOL declaration.
Imperative conditions of necessity exist due to the serious risks to B's safety and the lack of alternative placements. The proposed restrictions are necessary and proportionate to safeguard B's welfare.
The court authorized the specific restrictions requested by the Local Authority, including staff-to-child ratios, restraint use, and sleep monitoring.
These restrictions are deemed necessary to mitigate the risks associated with B's behavior.
The DOL declaration is for a period of three months and is a final order.
A three-month period is deemed a sensible balance between B's rights and his safety.