FD25C40349 - [2025] EWHC 1974 (Fam)

Prior to G’s admission to hospital, G consented to his accommodation by the local authority. He wished to consent to his accommodation on discharge but would only do so if the placement provided by the local authority accorded with his wishes and feelings.

The local authority argued that G is a looked after child. They ask me to exercise the inherent jurisdiction and grant orders depriving him of his liberty to compel him by use of restraint if necessary to leave the hospital ward and be transported to a placement to which he does not wish to go. They argued, in essence, that as he wished to be accommodated, he could not dictate his placement and should be taken, if necessary, against his will to a placement they considered best met his welfare interests.

The Guardian and G opposed the orders sought both on the grounds that this court does not have the jurisdiction to make the order sought and that even if it did, it would be contrary to G’s welfare to do so. The Guardian argues that G’s welfare will be sufficiently protected by him remaining a ward of court until he turns eighteen and reaches adulthood.