Y (Autism -Care Proceedings- Deprivation of Liberty), Re [2018] EWHC B63 (23 April 2018)

Y (Autism -Care Proceedings- Deprivation of Liberty), Re [2018] EWHC B63 (23 April 2018)

Threshold criteria under s31(2)(b) Children Act 1989 are met as Y is beyond parental control and would likely suffer significant harm if placed at home. The evidence demonstrates that the parents, despite being loving and committed, are unable to manage Y's complex needs full-time. The care provided at Island Lodge was inadequate and harmful, but the local authority's revised plan for specialist residential placement (M) is in Y's welfare interests. A care order is necessary and proportionate; deprivation of liberty is not extended as Y is to move to a more suitable placement.

Citation
[2018] EWHC B63
Parties
Applicant Local Authority: London Borough of Barking and Dagenham; First Respondent Parent: Mr X; Second Respondent Parent: Mrs X; Subject Child: Y (child); Children's Guardian: Lara Bloom
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 April 2018
Procedural Posture
Care Proceedings (public Law) / Final Hearing and Judgment
Outcome
Care order granted; deprivation of liberty order not extended; Y to be placed at specialist residential home M under care order.
Legal Topics
Care Orders, Deprivation of Liberty, Parental Responsibility, Threshold Criteria, Welfare of the Child, Autism and Disability, Article 8 ECHR, Article 6 ECHR
Family Law Child Protection Human Rights Care Orders Deprivation of Liberty Parental Responsibility Threshold Criteria Welfare of the Child +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

London Borough of Barking and Dagenham

Applicant Local Authority

Mr X

First Respondent Parent

Mrs X

Second Respondent Parent

Y (child)

Subject Child

Lara Bloom

Children's Guardian

Procedural Posture

Care Proceedings (public Law) / Final Hearing and Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether threshold criteria under s31 Children Act 1989 are met for a care order
  2. 2 Whether it is in Y's welfare interests to be placed at residential home M or return home
  3. 3 Whether deprivation of liberty is lawful and necessary

Ratio Decidendi

Threshold criteria under s31(2)(b) Children Act 1989 are met as Y is beyond parental control and would likely suffer significant harm if placed at home. The evidence demonstrates that the parents, despite being loving and committed, are unable to manage Y's complex needs full-time. The care provided at Island Lodge was inadequate and harmful, but the local authority's revised plan for specialist residential placement (M) is in Y's welfare interests. A care order is necessary and proportionate; deprivation of liberty is not extended as Y is to move to a more suitable placement.

Court Disposition

Care order granted; deprivation of liberty order not extended; Y to be placed at specialist residential home M under care order.

Orders

  • Care order under s31 Children Act 1989 in favour of the local authority
  • No extension of deprivation of liberty order; Y to move to new placement