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: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:
Citation number(s):
What links here:Published: 6/2/25 12:34
Cached: 2025-05-19 18:07:35
The following categories (in blue boxes) can be clicked to view a list of other pages in the same category: