FD25C40349 - [2025] EWHC 1974 (Fam)

The young person at the heart of this judgment will be referred to herein as G. He was born in March 2008. In October 2023, G expressed himself to be suicidal. He left his mother’s care and went to live with his father. Whilst living with his father, G again expressed suicidal ideation and on occasion absconded. G has been accommodated by the local authority since 18 March 2024, shortly after his sixteenth birthday. That accommodation has been pursuant to Section 20 Children Act 1989; the local authority accepting that G has the relevant capacity to provide consent to his own accommodation by the local authority. The accommodation followed G’s relationship with his father breaking down and G referring himself to social services. G is estranged from his parents and does not want them to know of the identity he now uses or where he is. They and the local authority have accepted his wishes. Consequently, they have limited knowledge of their son’s current circumstances.

Within that context, G whilst accommodated has been provided with a number of local authority placements. These have included children's homes, supported lodgings and foster care. When he has become dissatisfied with his placement, he has absconded to random locations, attended hospital and threatened to harm himself, on occasion he has threatened to kill himself. By his actions, G has put himself at risk, including at risk of death. Whilst professionals (social care and health) consider that G makes these threats to get his own way rather than because he is truly suicidal, there is nevertheless a real risk that he will unintentionally cause himself significant harm or indeed kill himself.

On 7 March 2025 G presented himself to the emergency department of a hospital with his social worker. He was in distress. He was expressing suicidal ideation. He was admitted to hospital as a voluntary patient. G is considered Gillick competent. Since his admission, G has not required any medical care with the only exception being a course (ten days) of phenoxymethylpenicillin on 7 March 2025. This treatment would ordinarily be given in the community rather than in an acute hospital. G has not required or received any other medical treatment. The hospital will not detain him against his will. His mental health is vulnerable, but he is outwith the statutory scheme provided for by the Mental Health Act 1983. He is medically fit for discharge, as he has been since admission. In the normal course of events, he would receive mental health support in the community. G cannot remain on the hospital ward indefinitely given:

G does not present with any substance misuse issues, or offending behaviour. He poses no risk to others. He is a bright and articulate young person who is pursuing and achieving his academic goals. He has a clear vision of what he wants for his future. It is accepted before me that he has capacity - including capacity to instruct his own solicitor - and to voluntarily admit himself as an inpatient to hospital. As already stated, in March 2024 he was considered by the local authority to have the capacity to consent to be voluntarily accommodated under section 20 Children Act 1989.

G’s parents have parental responsibility for him until he turns eighteen - Sections 3, 4 and 105(1) Children Act 1989. G’s father does not consent to his son’s accommodation by the local authority; his mother does. However, G strongly objects to either of his parents being given any pertinent information about him. He objects to them knowing the name he now uses or where he is placed. There is thus an issue about his mother’s ability to give fully informed consent. The local authority cannot acquire parental responsibility for him under a care or interim care order. By reason of his age, they cannot apply for a care order, including an interim care order, in relation to him - Section 31(3) Children Act 1989 applied. They could apply for an emergency protection order but that would be for limited duration – Sections 44 and 45 Children Act 1989. Such an order would not meet the needs of this case.

Against that background, the local authority applied for permission to invoke the inherent jurisdiction - Section 100 Children Act 1989. If permitted, within that jurisdiction they sought an order that will deprive G of his liberty for 6 months. They sought an order which will permit them to use force to take him from the hospital ward to the placement they consider will meet his needs and to keep him there. G does not wish to go to that placement, will not go there of his own free will and is unlikely to stay there unless prevented from leaving.

The local authority has identified a placement designed for therapeutic help for children aged 16 upwards and for adults. The placement is registered with the CQC but not with Ofsted. Within this judgment, I refer to this placement as option 2.