The government's website provides guidance for landlords on changes contained in the Renters'...
Service update: Unfortunately, Willett & Co no longer offer family law services. If you need assistance with divorce, financial remedy, or pre-nuptial agreements, please seek a specialist family solicitor. We continue to advise on private client, property, commercial, crime, employment and dispute resolution matters.
The High Court has refused a local authority’s application to make a Deprivation of Liberty (DoL) order in respect of a 17-year-old boy, ruling that the order would have breached statutory restrictions under the Children Act 1989.
Background to the Case
The young person, estranged from his parents, had been under local authority accommodation since shortly after his 16th birthday. Over time, he had experienced several placement changes, frequently absconded, and expressed threats to harm himself.
In March 2025, he attended hospital with suicidal ideation and was admitted as a voluntary patient. Although medically fit for discharge, the local authority sought to move him to a placement they believed suitable for his needs.
However, the boy refused to go to the proposed placement and stated a clear preference for an alternative arrangement.
The Application
The local authority applied to the High Court for permission to use its inherent jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Children Act 1989, seeking an order to:
Deprive the boy of his liberty for six months; and
Authorise his removal from hospital to the authority’s preferred placement.
The court heard that the boy would not attend or remain at that placement voluntarily, necessitating restrictions on his freedom if the order were made.
The Court’s Decision
The High Court considered the young person’s own written statement, in which he gave clear and rational reasons for preferring an alternative placement. He also indicated he would consent to accommodation under Section 20 of the Act if placed where he requested.
The Children’s Guardian supported his position, warning that forcing him into the local authority’s chosen placement could worsen his emotional and mental health.
The Court held that the primary purpose of the local authority’s application was to compel the child to be accommodated against his will, not simply to authorise a deprivation of liberty. This directly contravened Section 100(2)(b), which prohibits using the inherent jurisdiction to require a child to be accommodated by a local authority without valid consent.
The Court therefore declined to make the Deprivation of Liberty order.
Best Interests Consideration
Even if the Court had been mistaken about the legal basis of the application, it found that compelling the boy to go to the proposed placement would not have been in his best interests.
The boy’s decision was described as both reasoned and reasonable. The Court acknowledged that the local authority confirmed it would offer him his preferred placement if the order was refused - a proposal the boy accepted and to which he consented.
Key Legal Points
Section 100(2)(b) Children Act 1989 restricts the use of the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction where its effect would be to compel a child’s accommodation by a local authority.
Valid consent under Section 20 remains a critical safeguard.
The case underlines the importance of respecting a young person’s voice and capacity in care decisions, especially where mental health and autonomy are in issue.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q1: What is a Deprivation of Liberty (DoL) order?
A DoL order authorises restrictions on a person’s freedom, such as preventing them from leaving a placement or controlling their movements, where such restrictions are necessary and lawful.
Q2: What is Section 100(2)(b) of the Children Act 1989?
This section limits the High Court’s power to use its inherent jurisdiction to require a child to be accommodated by a local authority, ensuring the child’s consent or other lawful authority is present.
Q3: What is Section 20 accommodation?
Under Section 20 of the Children Act 1989, a child can be voluntarily accommodated by a local authority with their consent (and, where appropriate, that of their parents).
Q4: Why did the Court refuse the order?
The Court found that the local authority’s application sought to compel the child’s accommodation against his will, which breached statutory limits. It also ruled that doing so would not be in the boy’s best interests.
Q5: What does this case mean for local authorities?
Local authorities must ensure applications for Deprivation of Liberty orders are lawful, proportionate, and compliant with statutory limits - particularly where the child has capacity and expresses a clear, reasoned preference.