Re RK; YB v BCC  EWHC 3355 (COP)
(1) Given the terms of s20(8) Children Act 1989 (that any person with parental responsibility may at any time remove the child) the provision of accommodation to a child under s20(1), (3), (4) or (5) will not ever give rise to a deprivation of liberty within the terms of Article 5. If the child is being accommodated under the auspices of a care order, interim or full, or if the child has been placed in secure accommodation under s25, then the position might be different. (2) In any event: (a) the objective element of deprivation of liberty was not remotely close to being met on the facts; (b) the subjective element was not met, as the parents had consented on RK's behalf; (c) RK's placement was at the behest of her parents and could not be imputed to the state. [Detailed summary to follow.]
Citation on transcript:  EWHC 3355 (COP)Not on Bailii! (Fam)
Thanks to Alex Ruck Keene (39 Essex Chambers) for providing the judgment.
Possible Bailii link (not there when checked last night, but might have appeared since)