l - [2025] EWHC 2230 (Fam)

The Guardian’s position

The Guardian does not consider a DOLs order is appropriate. In the position statement served for the hearing before me, his solicitors say:

The Guardian has read the updating second Social Work statement which suggests that Children’s Services feel that Jake’s risks cannot be managed without a Deprivation of Liberty Order. However, the Guardian notes that his licence stipulates that there is a curfew in place and that he must reside at the current placement or at an establishment that is assessed by the Youth Offending Service as part of his licence requirements. The Guardian can see that Jake is saying that he wants to have some lesser restrictions and wishes to go and see his family and friends in the Cannock area and to have his mobile phone back at some stage.

The Guardian remains confused and concerned that little preparation work was completed with Jake between Children’s Services and the Youth Offending Services, and it almost feels like there’s an extra added layer of incarceration which is inappropriately used through the Deprivation of Liberty Order.

A positive element of the DOLs is the fact that Jake can access therapeutic interventions in September with a therapist… who is delivering EDMR therapy. The Guardian notes that this intervention was due to take place at [the detention centre], however this did not happen. The Guardian feels that the local authority is using the [current] placement… to now try to implement therapy, when this actually should have been addressed whilst he was serving his sentence at [the detention centre], and also can be delivered through the Youth Offending Service as part of his licence conditions…

Guardian’s analysis

The Guardian can see having read the last Statutory Care Plan Review dated the 4th of August, four days after he was placed [in Wrexham], that the question of when the last LAC review was in custody was raised. The Guardian does not support this DOLs remaining in place. It is evident that there was a lacking in pre-release planning which was undertaken extremely close to Jake being released. There is also evidence of poor risk management, and the Guardian feels that the YOT are using the DOLs order as way to address the work needed, which is not appropriate. The Guardian feels, with respect, that there has been somewhat of a taking the eye off the ball whilst Jake was in custody. The Guardian notes from his reading that this work should have taken place whilst Jake was incarcerated and the Guardian notes that if the DOLs is enforced it will likely not help with his engagement with his licence, or his social worker. There should have been some open transparent conversations with Jake about the DOLs and his licence expectation, which would in essence change or reduce his offending. However, the Guardian goes back to the question as to how and why the professionals are suggesting Jake is a high-risk offender. The Guardian also notes that little contextual references are made to Jake being a victim of sexual abuse himself, which then takes us back to the importance of therapeutic intervention…

Jake has had no therapy, but the YOT is able to pick this up as identified. Again, the licence states that Jake must live… where he is at present, or an approved accommodation assessed by his YOT supervising officer. The Guardian questions whether anybody has asked Jake if he’d live there without a DOLs in place. The Guardian also questions why there was only a LAC Review four days after release and why this not reviewed earlier. It appears to the Guardian that agencies have not been transparent with Jake about why it was felt that a DOLs was necessary…

The Guardian has reflected upon Re T (A Child) [2021] UKSC 35 [reported at [2022] AC 723] which held that the use of the inherent jurisdiction to authorise the deprivation of liberty in certain cases was permissible, but expressed grave concern about its use to fill a gap in the child care system caused by inadequate resources, with the Court being asked to ‘plug the systemic gaps’. Fundamentally, the Guardian cannot support the continuation of a DOLs being in place in respect of Jake at this juncture. There is no current evidence to suggest that he has not or will not engage in support work and therapy and he should be given that opportunity. At no point has the local authority, or attached agencies, discussed Jake being at [the Wrexham address] without a DOLs. The Guardian believes that the risks can be managed by the local authority and the Youth Offending Team under his licence conditions, which sets out clearly the boundaries for Jake. It is therefore not proportionate, on balance, for the DOLs to remain in place.”

Mr Dorian Day, who appeared for Jake on instructions from the Guardian, pointed out that there was no evidence from [the YOT supervisor], so the Court did not know what the rationale for the licence conditions was. He submitted that the DOLs order sought was an invasive order and that it was neither proportionate nor necessary to make it.