![FD25C40349 - [2025] EWHC 1974 (Fam)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_0FrGysm.png){kind=logo}
The Position on the Ground at the Hearing Before Me
The Position on the Ground at the Hearing Before Me
By the time of the hearing before me on 2 May 2025, there was evidence from the hospital that the restrictions on G’s liberty I had authorised were no longer necessary. He had been outside of the hospital with 1:1 support and supervision. There had been no risk incidents during his admission and pertinently he had not attempted to abscond since he became aware of the applications before me. The hospital wished to assist the court, but they needed G’s bed on the acute ward and that need was becoming more pressing with each day that passed. A decision needed to be made that day although the hearing time my list allowed was short.
The local authority continued to consider the placement they had identified for G was in his best interests. They wanted me to permit secure transport and restraint of G to enable him to be taken against his will to a placement I have referred to as option 2. They proposed I should make an order for 6 months which permitted:
Locked doors and windows.
Restraint from harming himself.
1:1 staffing with no unsupervised time in or outside of the placement.
No unsupervised contact with family members or friends, to include direct and indirect contact.
Items to be restricted or removed as necessary to keep G safe.
The Local authority’s case was that after a period of six months and appropriate support had been implemented for G, it might be possible at tat stage to identify a semi-independent placement that can support him through to independence safely.
Within the bundle compiled for the hearing I had a statement from G in his own words. From that it was clear G had invested in these proceedings. Within that statement he set out with reasons his clear preference for a placement I have called option 3 below and gave his reasons. He stated with equal clarity why he did not want to go to option 2 which was the local authority’s preferred placement. He said this about the application for a Deprivation of Liberty order:
-My views of the DOLS order is that it is not necessary. My Guardian considers the same. I am consenting to go to the [Option 3 placement] with some requests and assurances. One of those requests is that the DOLS is not made. I want to have the ability within the boundaries of the placements curfew to be able to come in and out of the placement without restrictions. To live a normal and socialising life and go experience life in the outside world. I want to be able to attend a college in person and do a course in policing/public services this academic year starting September. Virtual learning is not in my best interest in education. I want to be able to seek and attend employment or charity work without restriction so I may support myself and for my CV in the future. I want to be able to be in or out of the placement without 1 to 1 restrictions.
- I want to have the ability to partake in a normal life as supervision of the degree proposed in the DOL would be painfully frustrating, especially when trying to have a morning jog for example. To be placed on 24/7, 1 to 1 supervision would be restricting many hobbies such as gym, education, socialisation, and much more. It would cause me to become more hopeless and less motivated to do anything in life as time went on. The DOLS in my view would be what I consider putting my brain and heart in shackles while my body drowns in restrictions. I know that I won't be able to come back from it. I’d rather be free.
Within his statement G then set out that he will consent to section 20 accommodation on condition that his requests are met.
Within her initial analysis dated 14 April 2025, the Guardian stated this:
I have asked the LA to carry out searches for alternative placements which meet G’s criteria, so that the court has all of the options available to make a decision.
There is a delicate balance between respecting Gs wishes and feelings, in light of his age, and the careful consideration he has given to identifying colleges/universities where he would like to undertake further education, which dictate the areas he would like to live. This has to be balanced against the professional network and the concerns they raise about “a cyclical pattern” whereby G asks for a placement to meet certain criteria, and he then becomes dissatisfied and presents to acute hospitals in mental health crisis.
Placing G in a placement against his wishes and feelings and under a restrictive order would clearly impact negatively on his emotional and mental health. G was concerned to read that the identified placement accommodated people aged between 16-31 years old and is a placement for hard-to-place young people.
I do not consider that a DOLO is necessary, if LA are able to identify a suitable placement for G. I have concerns about a further residential placement given his previous experiences. However, I have concerns about his reaction and the impact on his mental health, if this is not possible.
Whilst not ideal by any means, an alternative option may be to continue the current order so that G remain in hospital and the matter returns in short order with the LA providing a statement from the Head of Placements team detailing the searches undertake, the criteria and profile used for such searches.
If an order is made for him to move to the identified placement by the LA, there needs to be an ongoing robust search for a more suitable placement for him. The LA need to provide ongoing evidence of such searches. Any order should be for a short period of time and reviewed
That evidence was provided by the local authority who placed three options before the court whilst clearly maintaining their plan to take him by force to option 2 and deprive him of his liberty to ensure that he remained there. G and his Guardian opposed his placement at option 2 and the intended deprivation of his liberty. G and the Guardian strongly argued that the local authority were seeking to use restrictions authorised by the court to deprive G of his liberty to compel accommodation of G against his wishes. G was not willing to move to the local authority’s placement, but he had an open mind about both the other options ( options 1 and 3 ), having expressed a preference for one in his statement. He was very keen to obtain the rest of his belongings, as he has been left in hospital with only very limited clothing and he was worried about being left without things when he moves, as has happened in the past.
G spoke to me at the hearing on 2 May 2025 and watched the proceedings on the link; giving instructions when appropriate to his legal team. By the time of the hearing on 2 May 2025, G’s requests had modified and reduced He had also changed his mind about his preferred placement option which was ultimately what I have termed option 1. He gave reasons for changing his mind about the placement options and why he preferred option 1 to option 3. His Guardian considered his reasoning to be cogent and reasonable. The Guardian considered that G’s future welfare was sufficiently secured by the continuation of the wardship order. No other order was required.
At the hearing before me the local authority was represented by Mr Butler of Counsel . G and the Guardian were aligned in their case and represented by Mr Lamb of Counsel. I am grateful to both Counsel and the professionals involved in this case for their diligence and hard work. I had skeleton arguments from both Mr Butler and Mr Lamb which succinctly captured the issues and addressed them. Both are to be commended for the quality of the written advocacy in this case which enabled me to proceed to make a decision when hearing time was short and a decision was needed urgently.