Lancashire County Council v G  EWHC 2828 (Fam)
Inherent jurisdiction and DOL A 16-year-old girl was inappropriately placed on an adult mental health ward, there was no secure placement or regulated non-secure placement was available in the UK, the only placement was an unregulated placement that was not prepared to apply to OFSTED for registration, and the alternative was discharge with nowhere to go and a very high risk of fatal self-harm. The judge authorised deprivation of liberty at the unauthorised placement but noted grave reservations about whether the court was really exercising its welfare jurisdiction or simply being forced by mere circumstance to make an order irrespective of welfare considerations. The judge directed the judgment be sent to the Children's Commissioner for England, the Secretary of State for Education, the Chair of the Residential Care Leadership Board, the Minister for Children, the Chief Social Worker, OFSTED and SWCU.
- Shortage of secure accommodation. Ellen Lloyd, 'Case Summary: Lancashire CC v G (2020) EWHC 2828' (Bevan Brittan, 9/12/20) — This article discusses the court's approach to deprivation of liberty of children in unregulated non-secure accommodation. Headings include: (1) Practical impact; (2) What is the difference between secure and non-secure accommodation, regulated and unregulated?; (3) What should a Court consider when determining an application for a secure accommodation order?; (4) What happens if there is no secure accommodation available?