FD25C40107 - [2025] EWHC 1264 (Fam)

I have been asked to make an order permitting the Local Authority in this case to continue to deprive a child, LB, of her liberty. I was not prepared to make the order requested by the Local Authority and set out my reasons in this brief judgment so that the parties (and any Judge who deals with this matter after my involvement) can understand why I declined to make an order

LB was born in August 2009 and is 15 years old and she soon will have her 16^th birthday. She was originally accommodated by the Local Authority under an agreement with her parents under s20 of the Children Act 1989 but a full care order was made on 6 December 2024. As a result, parental responsibility for LB is now shared between the Local Authority and her parents. The care order was made, in summary, on the basis that her parents could not provide a proper level of parenting support to her because of domestic violence initiated by her father against her mother and the effects of drug taking in the household.

LB does not wish to be in care and wishes to return to live with her mother. In December 2024 LB absconded and went back to live with her mother. On 13 February 2025 HHJ Bailey made a recovery order to enable the Local Authority to recover LB and to return her to a placement which was not local to where she lived. On the same day HHJ Bailey, sitting as a Judge of the High Court, made an order permitting the Local Authority to instruct the care provider to put in place arrangements which had the effect of depriving LB of her liberty at the placement. That order expired on 13 May 2025.

The C66 application seeking the DOLS order does not specify the basis upon which the Local Authority is seeking the order save for referring to the fact that the Local Authority was also applying for a recovery order. The witness statement by the social worker to support the application for a recovery order states:

“[LB] needs to be returned to her placement as a matter of urgency and up until

this point has refused any encouragement to do so by her placement and social

work staff. There is also no support by her mother [CB], therefore we

respectfully request that the court provide a Recovery Order to allow LB to be

returned to her placement as a matter of urgency”

A further witness statement was provided by the social worker dated 10 January 2025 which said:

“LB continued to state she was safer in her mother’s care, she had a good routine, was eating better and sleeping better and she had no self-harmed since she had been at home, she was self-harming daily at her placement. LB continued to speak over the social worker by saying her mother was “a lovely hard working woman, I am proud of my mum and what she has done over the last 17 years with 7 children, and she was getting very upset and shouting louder. LB informed she was going to have a shower”

A subsequent statement set out the restrictions that the Local Authority sought to implement and said that their assessment was that these restrictions were “necessary, the least restrictive and a proportionate response to the risk of harm which arise”. It appears clear that the Local Authority was working on the basis that it was entitled to come before the court to seek permission to deprive LB of her liberty on the basis that this was needed to prevent LB from absconding back to spend time with her mother. I also have a letter from LB who very strongly objects to the restrictions that are forced on her and asks me to discharge the order. Her Guardian takes an intermediate position in saying that, at present, she supports the retention of the restrictions but only for a short period to allow the Local Authority to formulate a proper plan so as to allow for their removal.

There are 3 relevant issues that arise that, at this stage, mean that I should not make a further DOLS order.