High Court authorises deprivation of liberty of seven-year-old child in registered children's home
The High Court has granted a local authority’s application to deprive a seven-year-old boy of his liberty, with directions to use the “minimum degree of force or restraint required”.
In U, Re (A Child: Deprivation of Liberty) [2024] EWHC 228 (Fam), the case concerned a young boy, (U), who is the subject of an Interim Care Order made in ongoing proceedings in the Family Court. He has diagnoses of autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).
U is placed in a children's home, funded by the local authority. It operates as a private children's home for 7- to-18-year-olds, registered with Ofsted.
In January this year the local authority made an application for a Deprivation of Liberty Order, a permissive Order, under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court.
His Honour Judge Middleton-Roy, acting as a High Court judge, said the Guardian supported the local authority's application, “albeit reluctantly.”
The judge added that with U only seven, it was “an extraordinarily young age for a child subject to an application of this nature”.
The Guardian informed the court that U has required 2:1 adult supervision by staff members when present in the community, so as to manage his behaviour, and 1:1 supervision during the day and night at all other times in placement.
The judge noted that U has been subject of physical restraint by members of staff on at least six occasions since November 2023.
Given U’s diagnoses of ADHD and autism, the Children's Guardian expressed concern about the harm these acts of restraint may have on U, said the judge.
HHJ Middleton-Roy said that in considering any application for deprivation of liberty of a looked after child, the court must ask itself two key questions:
(a) Do the arrangements proposed for the child, 'U', amount to a deprivation of liberty for the purposes of Art 5 of the ECHR?
(b) If so, is the deprivation of liberty in the child's best interests?
He added: “The Court has regard also to the three-part test in Storck v Germany [2005] 43 EHRR 6, adopted by the Supreme Court in Cheshire West namely, (a) the objective component of confinement in a particular restricted place for a not negligible length of time; (b) the subjective component of lack of valid consent; and (c) the attribution of responsibility to the State.”
HHJ Middleton-Roy found that the living and care arrangements of U amounted to a deprivation of U’s liberty. He concluded: “Looking at all the circumstances of the case, on the evidence currently available, it is in 'U's best interests to make an order depriving him of his liberty. The Court is satisfied that the restrictions set out in this order as the least restrictive options for 'U'.”
The judge directed the local authority to use the minimum degree of force or restraint required. He said: “The Court declares that the use of such force/restraint is lawful and in 'U's best interests, provided always that the measures are used as a last resort and provided always the measures are:
(i) the least restrictive 'U's rights and freedoms;
(ii) proportionate to the anticipated harm;
(iii) the least required to ensure U's safety and that of others; and
(iv) respectful of 'U's dignity.”
HHJ Middleton-Roy said the Court would fully review the child's circumstances in March and consider what further orders are in his best interests.
“If a change or changes of the Care Plan render it more restrictive than proposed but are not required as a matter of imperative necessity, the local authority must apply to the Court for urgent review of this Order before any changes are made.”
Lottie Winson
