Lancashire County Council v Claire X
[2023] EWHC 2667 (Fam)
X (Child: Deprivation of Liberty: Lack of Placement), Re
8 December 2023
[2023] EWHC 3416 (Fam)
High Court
A 14-year-old girl with serious mental health problems needs a special place to live, but there aren't any available. A judge said it's okay to keep her in a place with lots of supervision, even though it limits her freedom, because it's the safest option for now. The judge also pointed out that the system needs to improve for kids like her.
Key Facts
- •14-year-old girl (X) with severe mental health issues, including self-harm, suicidal ideation, violence, and risky behaviors.
- •Admitted to hospital multiple times, behavior necessitating restraint and sedation.
- •Lack of suitable placements for X, resulting in prolonged hospital stay in a restrictive environment.
- •Hospital Trust and Local Authority applied for court authorization to deprive X of her liberty.
- •Local Authority found over 200 registered placements unsuitable and intends to place X in an unregistered placement.
Legal Principles
Inherent jurisdiction of the High Court to authorize deprivation of a child's liberty.
Re L (An Infant) [1968] 1 All ER 20; A City Council v LS [2019] 1384 (Fam)
Jurisdiction can supplement statutory schemes to address societal interests.
Re F (Mental Patient: sterilisation) [1990] 2 AC 1; A Mother v. Derby City Council [2021] EWCA Civ 1867
Deprivation of liberty must meet the 'Stork test' (objective confinement, lack of consent, state imputation) and the 'acid test' (incapacity, continuous supervision and control, inability to leave).
Stork v Germany [2006] 43 EHHR 6; Cheshire West and Chester v P [2014] AC 896; Re D (A Child) [2019] UKSC 42
Authorisation is subject to 'imperative considerations of necessity' and compliance with President of the Family Division's Guidance.
Re T [2021] UKSC 35; Tameside MBC v L [2021] EWHC 1814 (fam)
Court retains jurisdiction even if placement is prohibited by regulations.
Tameside MBC v AM and Ors [2021] EWHC 2472 (Fam); A Mother v. Derby City Council [2021] EWCA Civ 1867
Child's best interests are paramount.
Re L (An Infant) [1968] 1 All ER 20
Outcomes
Approved continuation of deprivation of liberty in hospital and authorized deprivation of liberty in new unregistered placement.
Current placement unsuitable; new placement, though unregistered, offers better care and is a necessary step, even though restrictive. Imperative considerations of necessity are satisfied due to lack of alternative suitable options. The new placement, while restrictive, represents the least restrictive option to ensure X's safety.
Interim care order granted to the local authority.
Parents agree X is beyond their control; welfare checklist under s. 1(3) Children Act 1989 satisfied.