G, Re (A Child)

G, Re (A Child)

The court cannot use its inherent jurisdiction to compel accommodation of a competent 17-year-old against his will or without valid parental consent, as this offends section 100(2)(b) Children Act 1989. Deprivation of liberty is not justified where the child does not consent and restrictions are neither necessary...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Applicant: Kent County Council; First Respondent: The Mother; Second Respondent: The Father; Third Respondent: G (by his Children’s Guardian); Fourth Respondent: A Hospital Trust
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 July 2025
Procedural Posture
Family / Final Judgment on Application for Deprivation of Liberty Order
Outcome
Application for deprivation of liberty order dismissed; wardship jurisdiction continued.
Legal Topics
Deprivation of Liberty, Wardship, Children Act 1989, Inherent Jurisdiction, Consent, Parental Responsibility
Family Law Child Law Human Rights Deprivation of Liberty Wardship Children Act 1989 Inherent Jurisdiction Consent +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kent County Council

Applicant

The Mother

First Respondent

The Father

Second Respondent

G (by his Children’s Guardian)

Third Respondent

A Hospital Trust

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family / Final Judgment on Application for Deprivation of Liberty Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court can authorise deprivation of liberty for a competent 17-year-old under the inherent jurisdiction
  2. 2 Whether the application for deprivation of liberty order is compatible with the statutory scheme of the Children Act 1989
  3. 3 Whether parental consent is valid and sufficient for accommodation under section 20 Children Act 1989

Ratio Decidendi

The court cannot use its inherent jurisdiction to compel accommodation of a competent 17-year-old against his will or without valid parental consent, as this offends section 100(2)(b) Children Act 1989. Deprivation of liberty is not justified where the child does not consent and restrictions are neither necessary nor proportionate to the risk of harm. The application was primarily to compel accommodation, not to authorise deprivation of liberty at a placement where G consents. Therefore, the order sought by the local authority is refused.

Court Disposition

Application for deprivation of liberty order dismissed; wardship jurisdiction continued.

Orders

  • G to remain a ward of court until adulthood; any further applications regarding G's welfare reserved to the same judge.
  • Local authority to accommodate G at his placement of choice without deprivation of liberty.