Re V (Profound Disabilities) (2025) EWHC 200 (Fam): Difference between revisions

Revision as of 11:39, 6 March 2025

No DOL if 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. The proposed restrictions on mobile phone use were an appropriate exercise of the local authority's parental responsibility under the care order.

Essex search

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

CASES DATABASE

Full judgment: BAILII

Subject(s):

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

Date: 31/1/25🔍

Court: High Court (Family Division)🔍

Cites:

Re SM: Peterborough City Council v Mother [2024] EWHC 493 (Fam)

Judge(s):

Middleton-Roy🔍

Parties:

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

Citation number(s):

[2025] EWHC 200 (Fam)^B

What links here:

Published: 6/2/25 12:34

Cached: 2025-06-24 04:58:25

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 |Cites=Re SM: Peterborough City Council v Mother (2024) EWHC 493 (Fam)
 |Sentence=No DOL if 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. The proposed restrictions on mobile phone use were an appropriate exercise of the local authority's parental responsibility under the care order.
 |Subject=Deprivation of liberty,Deprivation of liberty - children
 |News=Yes
 |RSS pubdate=2025-02-06 12:20:22 PM
 }}