FD25C40130 - [2025] EWHC 1690 (Fam)

The application before me was made by Tameside MBC on 10 February 2025 and issued the next day. It is an application for permission to invoke the inherent jurisdiction and, if that were permitted, for an order authorising the local authority to deprive N, a young woman, of her liberty. N was 17 years old when the application was before the court. She is now 18 years old.

N has been represented since the inception of the proceedings before me by a solicitor and a Guardian who has been appointed to consider her welfare interests. Her mother has attended the hearings before me when she could. All the hearings before me have been held remotely. When N has wanted to meet me, I have been able to meet with her remotely with her solicitor and her Guardian on the link.

N is bright and capable. She advocates for herself. She has insight. She has told her Guardian within these proceedings when she has been struggling with her mental health. She has expressed feelings of hopelessness. She has told her Guardian that she is wanting to be cared for, nurtured and to receive care that meets her needs. In my judgment that is what every young person deserves and expects. It is what N deserves and should expect.

Sadly, N has experienced significant insecurity and trauma in her life. As a child in the care of her parents she experienced domestic abuse, physical chastisement and parental substance misuse. In 2022 she was made the subject of a care order and placed in residential care. She regularly ran from there, she self-harmed and attempted to take her own life. In late 2022 she was placed in secure accommodation under s.25 of the Children Act 1989 because she was likely to abscond and if she did, would be likely to suffer significant harm. After approximately a year in secure accommodation, she returned to residential care with a court order authorising the deprivation of her liberty being put in place to keep her safe. That placement broke down. She moved again. A further deprivation of liberty order was made to keep her safe in her new placement. That lasted until September 2024. Shortly after its expiry, N moved to a semi-independent placement. She was 17 years old. Initially she appeared to settle, however that did not last for long and a cycle of absconding, self-harming, and attempting to kill herself emerged again and escalated. On 16 October 2024, N was admitted to A&E having cut her arm deeply. By 17 October 2024, there were significant concerns for her mental health. She was assaulting others and acting on her threats to commit suicide. Another order was made depriving her of her liberty to keep her safe. That order ran from 30 October 24 until 15 November 2024. The order was not extended further because the local authority considered that progress was being made with N’s mental health. There was a period of about two weeks when N was again regarded as stable before the pattern of absconding, self-harming, and attempting suicide came to the fore again. On 4 February 225 she was taken to hospital by the police under s.136 of the Mental Health Act 1983. She had taken 32 paracetamol tablets. She was discharged back to the placement from which she absconded. On 9 February 2025 she attended A&E seeking help for her mental health. She was self- reporting that she was banging her head against a wall to “make it all go away”. She left hospital. Later the same day she was found on a beach contemplating taking her own life. Again, she was taken to hospital by the police under s.136 of the Mental Health Act 1983 for assessment. She was discharged from the hospital and returned to her placement. By this time her placement had changed. It was now a therapeutic CQC registered provision which provides specialist care to young people, particularly around their mental health. N was being supported at a 2:1 staffing ratio. By reason of her behaviours, the placement provider had already served notice in January 2025. They were only prepared for her to remain with them whilst the local authority searched for another placement for her. Such placements are in high demand and the local authority could not find an alternative provision for her. Against that background, matters came to a head on 11 February 2025 when the provider served immediate notice. Given the events of the recent days, they considered that they were “unable to keep N alive”. They were no longer willing and, they would say, able to provide her with a placement. At that time, N was correctly described within the papers placed before me as being in a state of repeat and repeating crisis.