Re V (Profound Disabilities) (2025) EWHC 200 (Fam)

No DOL - cannot leave because of disabilities The local authority applied under s100 Children Act 1989 for declarations under the inherent jurisdiction that the proposed restrictions on a looked-after child were lawful under Article 5, Article 2 and Article 3. These restrictions included 2:1 or 1:1 supervision at all times, including when transported by vehicle and when in the community, and being monitored in his room by voice monitor and physical checks. The High Court decided that the reason V could not leave his care placement and required intimate support was because of his disabilities, not by reason of any action of the State, so no order was required.

Essex search

This case's neutral citation number appears in the following newsletters:

• 39 Essex Chambers, 'Mental Capacity Report' (issue 147, February 2025)
• 39 Essex Chambers, 'Mental Capacity Report' (issue 149, April 2025)

CASES DATABASE

Full judgment: BAILII

Subject(s):

• Deprivation of liberty - children🔍 See also: Category:Deprivation of liberty
• Deprivation of liberty🔍

Date: 31/1/25🔍

Court: High Court (Family Division)🔍

Judge(s):

• Middleton-Roy🔍

Parties:

• Rochdale Borough Council🔍
• The Mother🔍
• The Father🔍
• V🔍

Citation number(s):

• [2025] EWHC 200 (Fam)^B

What links here:

• Children Act 1989
• 39 Essex Chambers, 'Mental Capacity Report' (issue 147, February 2025)
• Re SM: Peterborough City Council v Mother [2024] EWHC 493 (Fam)

Published: 6/2/25 12:34

Cached: 2025-06-07 17:30:31