Open justice | Let us know if you have a tribunal decision you would like to publish (see Re A)
Email updates | CPD scheme

Online forum | Latest topic on forum: Ward with intermittent RC cover | News

Re V (Profound Disabilities) (2025) EWHC 200 (Fam): Difference between revisions
No edit summary
Line 5: Line 5:
|Judges=Middleton-Roy
|Judges=Middleton-Roy
|Parties=Rochdale Borough Council, The Mother, The Father, V
|Parties=Rochdale Borough Council, The Mother, The Father, V
|Sentence=No DOL - cannot leave because of disabilities
|Sentence=No DOL as cannot leave because of disabilities
|Summary=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.
|Summary=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.
|Subject=Deprivation of liberty - children,Deprivation of liberty
|Subject=Deprivation of liberty - children,Deprivation of liberty

Revision as of 13:05, 6 February 2025

No DOL as 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:

CASES DATABASE

Full judgment: BAILII

Subject(s):

Date: 31/1/25🔍

Court: High Court (Family Division)🔍

Judge(s):

Parties:

Citation number(s):

What links here:

Published: 6/2/25 12:34

Cached: 2025-06-24 08:19:37

Retrieved from "https://www.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/index.php?title=Re_V_(Profound_Disabilities)_(2025)_EWHC_200_(Fam)&oldid=65091"