Local Authority v C & Anor

I am dealing once again with A’s case. A, was born on [redacted], appears through the Children’s Guardian today, B, and represented by Ms Delaney.

The Local Authority is [Local Authority], represented by Ms Cracknell. The mother is C, represented today by Mr Coleman. The father is D, represented by Ms Ring.

The family have been known to children’s services since 2017 due to long standing issues with the parents’ alcohol abuse, chaotic lifestyle and inability to manage A’s behaviour.

A is involved in organised criminal activity and is at high risk of child exploitation. A has been missing from home for extended periods of time. In March 2025 A was seen in A&E for injuries which medics believe were highly likely to be knife wounds. His mother has informed the Authority previously that she had discovered drugs, large sums of money and weapons among his personal effects. A has been referred to MYSPACE, an agency committed to working with young people at the risk of criminality and exploitation and he has had a worker appointed with whom he engages. A has a diagnosis of ADHD and has an EHCP and has historically not been in education. A returned to education in June and was engaging well before the summer holidays.

The matter comes back before me today, as the Local Authority have finally found a placement for A. He can move there today; it is a solo placement in [redacted]. The placement initially offers a 17-week assessment intervention period, but that can be extended if felt necessary. The team at [redacted] purport to specialise in working with young people at risk of child exploitation, particularly where there are concerns around knife crime. They offer bespoke trauma-informed care with the oversight of clinicians and a health and wellbeing team. It is an outdoor activity centre, and the Local Authority feel that it would benefit A enormously.

I am familiar with this provision, it has been used in other cases that have come before me in the past and the only concerning feature about it is the cost, almost £17,000 a week, which is a staggering cost to the local authority. Over 17 weeks, the cost to the Local Authority will amount to £289,000. That cost clearly demonstrates, yet again, that local authorities are at the mercy of the private sector, and I am, time and again presented with cases where a Local Authority have secured provision that can cost anything between £12,000 and £20,000 per week. That is now a regular feature in this sort of case and the concern is that Local Authorities just cannot continue to fund places at that astronomical cost. Local authority resources are finite. There are no alternatives save for unregulated accommodation which often is just as expensive and ineffective. Whilst it is obvious that the issue requires a solution it is not a matter for me, as a judge, to say what that should be. That is a matter for Parliament.

However, it is positive that a placement has at last been found for A and hopefully the team can try to work with him, therapeutically and in other ways to try to disgorge him from the hook of child criminal exploitation. Hopefully, he can be inspired by the outdoor activities as well.

In those circumstances, I am satisfied that it is also necessary and proportionate for me to make the deprivation of liberty declaration, as I am invited to do. I note that the home operates on a staffing ratio of 2:1, each door is fitted with a thumb lock which allows young people to leave without restriction, however, each door is alarmed which would notify staff if A attempted to leave. No waking staff, but alarms in place should he leave his room at night, and windows are fitted with restrictors.

Ongoing family time will be important for A, and in addition indirect contact with the parents and siblings, via the use of the home’s landline. He will not have use of a mobile phone, for obvious reasons. In addition, the home can facilitate family time both in the home and in the community and a contact planning meeting is due to take place within seven days to formulate a contact plan and the parents will have important input into that meeting.

I am satisfied that the Local Authority should have permission to apply, once again, for the exercise of the Court’s inherent jurisdiction. I am satisfied that the restrictions which the local authority seek to impose amount to a confinement having regard to a comparative child of the same age.I am satisfied that the confinement is imputable to the state.The local authority and the parents cannot consent in light of the (interim) care order in place. The restrictions proposed by the Local Authority are the least restrictive of A’s liberty that are also consistent with the main objective of the Local Authority, which is to keep A safe.

I will therefore make the declaration as I am asked to do.
I am satisfied that the order is proportionate, i.e. the benefits of the proposed placement outweigh the infringement of rights.

In addition, that I will make the declaration so that it remains in force until 5pm on the day of the IRH.

I will also make the directions, as I am invited to do.

The Local Authority will have to keep under review the operation of the deprivation of liberty restrictions in accordance with its statutory obligations to review A’s care plan.

In addition, the matter will be listed then for IRH at 2pm on 12 December 2025. That will be an attended hearing, and I will list that for two hours.