Local authority cannot consent ruling

The Court was also very helpfully assisted by submissions made on behalf of interveners, Article 39 and Mind, the Secretary of State for Education and the Children’s Commissioner, whose focus was largely on the voice of the children being heard and the serious need for court oversight when authorising restrictions that may deprive a child’s liberty.

All parties and interveners sought to persuade the Court of Appeal, led by The President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew MacFarlane, together with Lady Justice King and Lord Justice Singh, that Mrs Justice Lieven was wrong in law when she decided that a local authority could authorise the deprivation of a child’s liberty by virtue of having parental responsibility under a Care Order.

The Court of Appeal has allowed the appeal and has granted a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard Order in the terms sought by the parties. Judgment will be handed down at a later date.

Sophie Webb, an Associate in the Care Team at RWK Goodman, who represents the mother in this case says "This is an incredibly important case which highlights the complexity of the law in this area and the right under Article 5 of the Human Rights Act to liberty and security of person. Whilst there was agreement between the parties in this case that the arrangements for the child were in his best interests, all agreed, as did the interveners, that the Local Authority should not impose such arrangements which deprive a child of their liberty without the court’s approval.

From a parent’s perspective, whilst there may be agreement at a certain point in time as to the arrangements for a child’s care and any restrictions that would deprive that child from their liberty, that may not always be the case. A child’s needs are likely to evolve throughout their childhood and into adolescence, potentially requiring additional or more restrictive care arrangements. Without the oversight of the Court and thorough scrutiny of the arrangements in place for a child, there is a real risk that a child will be unlawfully deprived of their liberty. Against a background of the issues we are seeing nationwide with the shortage of regulated placements for children, this could have a hugely detrimental impact on some of the most vulnerable children and young people in our society.

It was incredibly powerful to hear particular submissions today on behalf of the interveners around the experience of children in these situations and the importance of the child’s voice being heard. We have to remember who is at the very heart of these really important cases.

In my professional view, the Court of Appeal have made the right decision today."