FD25C40134 - [2025] EWHC 745 (Fam)

In order to avoid the identification of the parties involved, and the child in particular, I have anonymised all the family names and have kept my outline of the facts to the minimum necessary.

QX is a young man of 15. He is diagnosed as autistic with severe learning disabilities. There is no doubt that he requires continuous care and support. He is sometimes very challenging, including by way of physical assaults. There is no doubt he is not Gillick competent. It is inevitable this position will not change. When he is 16, QX will be the subject of proceedings in the Court of Protection. There is no doubt also that the care plan he enjoys at the present time involves continuous supervision and control, and he is not free to leave the place where he resides (without escort) and will be brought back to that place in accordance with his care plan.

QX’s family is somewhat complicated. QX’s parents are BM and BF. BM has long since recognised she is unable to look after QX. She has not seen him for over a decade.

For some time, until about 2016/17, BF and his then partner, DM, cared for QX together. Then, their relationship ended. About two years later BF moved out having stayed in the same house as DM for QX’s benefit. That left DM as the sole carer for QX.

About a year later, DM began a relationship with DF, who then moved in with her and QX. From about 2020, DM and DF have cared for QX. In the Summer of 2023, DM and DF were married.

In December 2023, DM and DF were granted a child arrangements order (CAO) in respect of QX and with that they obtained parental responsibility (PR). Therefore, at the present time, four people, BM, BF, DM and DF have parental responsibility for QX.

Then, in December 2024, QX assaulted DM very seriously. This led DM and DF, with heavy hearts, to ask the local authority to accommodate and care for QX. Just before Christmas 2024, QX was introduced to his current placement. He now resides happily at that placement, with appropriate care. The circumstances at the placement involve his objective deprivation of liberty as defined in the Cheshire West case.

As far as the Children Act 1989 is concerned, the arrangement is regulated by s.20. The LA considered whether a more institutional setting was appropriate for QX, using s. 25 of the Act, namely a secure accommodation order. However, they decided that it would be counter therapeutic for QX to be detained in such a place. The placement in which he resides now is more residential in character.

The LA, however, were naturally uneasy about the legal basis for the continued arrangement. They applied for a care order in the Family Court, and then they applied for authorisation by the High Court of what they saw as a deprivation of QX’s liberty.

The matter came before Ms Justice Henke on 13 February 2025, and she allocated the case to me. I was also allocated the care proceedings. At the first hearing of those proceedings, I made no interim care order, but I did authorise QX’s deprivation of liberty under the inherent jurisdiction pending proper argument of both issues.