Re J (Local Authority consent to Deprivation of Liberty) [2024] EWHC 1690 (Fam)
Local authority consent to child's DOL The High Court granted the care order as sought, but said that an order authorising deprivation of liberty was not necessary as the local authority could consent. (1) The judge was constrained by caselaw to find that there was a deprivation of liberty (the situation was not as clear cut as in SM). (2) The parents, and the LA if a care order is made, can give consent to deprivation of liberty: the test for whether a LA can make a decision or grant consent in respect of a child in their care is whether the consequences are "of great magnitude" to the child, but here the restrictions were the obligations of any responsible carer in ensuring J's best interests and were required by Article 2's positive obligations. [The consent point was overturned on appeal.]
Essex
This case has been summarised on page 26 of 39 Essex Chambers, 'Mental Capacity Report' (issue 142, July 2024).
Essex search
This case's neutral citation number appears in the following newsletters:Full judgment: BAILII
Subject(s):
- Deprivation of liberty - children🔍 See also: Category:Deprivation of liberty
Date: 25/6/24🔍
Court: High Court (Family Division)🔍
Judicial history:
Cites:
Judge(s):
- Lieven🔍
Parties:
Citation number(s):
What links here:- 39 Essex Chambers, 'Mental Capacity Report' (issue 142, July 2024)
- Re SM: Peterborough City Council v Mother [2024] EWHC 493 (Fam)
- Local Government Lawyer, 'Local authorities cannot authorise deprivations of liberty of children in care, Court of Appeal rules' (6 February 2025)
- J v Bath and North East Somerset Council [2025] EWCA Civ 478
Published: 11/2/25 13:14
Cached: 2025-05-25 13:10:32
The following categories (in blue boxes) can be clicked to view a list of other pages in the same category: