High Court judge makes care order for teenage boy despite local authority seeking to withdraw its application

A High Court judge has refused to allow a local authority to withdraw its application for a care order, finding that an order would be in the “best interests” of a teenage boy with complex needs.

In YR, Re (Deprivation of Liberty - Care Order - Principles of Care)) [2024] EWHC 564 (Fam), Mrs Justice Lieven concluded: “Although the services would probably be the same whether or not there is a Care Order, I am confident that the practical level of involvement and oversight will be greater. […] I take the view that it is in JR's best interests for a Care Order to be made, and such an order is necessary and proportionate in the circumstances.”

This case concerned JR, a 16-year-old boy. JR experienced a traumatic early life and was adopted by his parents, the Second and Third Respondents, when he was four.

In 2021, the parents raised concerns that JR was “beyond parental control” by reason of his physically aggressive and sexually inappropriate behaviours that were placing them and other members of the household at risk, said the judge.

JR was accommodated by the local authority (LA) at a residential school in April 2021 under s.20 Children Act 1989.

In October 2022, the placement gave immediate notice on the grounds that JR was trying to cause fires and was verbally abusive and aggressive.

Following a period of “significant disruption” in his care, JR was moved to an unregistered placement, with X Provider providing the care support.

In May 2023, the local authority applied for a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLs) order. JR’s parents agreed, and the order was made on that day.

The judge said: “There was then a lengthy period where the providers were unwilling to impose the restrictions permitted by the DoLS order. JR frequently absconded from the placement and placed himself and others at risk of harm. It was certainly the view of the Guardian that X Provider were incapable of controlling JR or meeting his needs, and the objective evidence entirely supports this analysis.”

Mrs Justice Lieven noted that the matter came before her in September 2023, having been referred by HHJ Walker sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, because of the level of concern about the local authority having a DoLS order “but there being no care proceedings and no holistic view of JR's welfare needs”.

She said: “Although I fully accept the difficulty of finding suitable placements for children as challenging as JR, it was the clear view of HHJ Walker, the Guardian and myself, that the LA were tolerating an inappropriate and unsafe placement for far longer than should have been the case.”

The next month the local authority issued public law proceedings but did not seek an Interim Care Order. The parents remained in their view that care proceedings were unnecessary.

In early November JR transitioned to a new school, but after a “short positive period” he was suspended for being racially abusive to staff.

There was also a report of JR sharing images of his genitals with a 15-year-old girl and of him being involved in a sex act with an older man. “This raised concerns about whether JR was being sexually exploited”, said the judge.

In December, the father proposed taking JR on a holiday. The council conducted a risk assessment and determined that the risks were “too great” given the trauma JR had been through in the previous months, said the judge.

However, the parents did not agree with this assessment and wished for JR to go on the holiday.

“Given that he was accommodated under s.20 agreement rather than a Care Order, it was not open to the LA to prevent the holiday”, the judge noted.

The local authority made an application to HHJ Walker for an order preventing the parents from removing JR from the jurisdiction, and she granted the order sought.

In January, JR moved to his current placement at Z Provider. “The intention is that JR will remain there until he transitions to independence at the age of 18”, said Mrs Justice Lieven.

Outlining the parties’ positions, the judge said: “The LA's position, as set out in the final Care Plan, details that [JR] will remain accommodated by the LA for the rest of his childhood. It is notable, however, that the LA does not seek a Care Order and therefore does not seek to share parental responsibility with the parents. The proposal is to work with the parents through the s.20 agreement.”

The Guardian's position was that JR should be made subject to a care order and not merely be accommodated by agreement under s.20. “Her view is that since the first residential placement broke down in October 2022, there has been little safe and consistent parenting of JR,” said the judge.

Mrs Justice Lieven considered a report by a psychologist appointed to undertake a psychological assessment of JR.

The psychologist set out, under a series of headings, JR's needs and the support and services that he requires.

The judge observed: “The approach that [the psychologist] sets out in his report also relates very closely to the Principles of Care applicable in DoLs cases in the NFJO Report. The Report argues that there need to be changes to the ways of working, and the type and availability of services to better meet the needs of children with complex needs and circumstances, including those subject to DoLs orders.”

She added: “These principles of care are what every child subject to a DoLs needs, and against which any proposed provision for these children should, in my view, be tested. It is extremely well known, and recorded in numerous judgments, that there is a dire shortage of suitable placements for children with complex needs who are subject to DoLs restrictions. However, the Principles of Care are important because they set out the benchmarks against which all provisions should be tested, and which all those involved in these cases should be trying to meet.”

Concluding the case, Mrs Justice Lieven said it was of the “utmost importance” for JR's future that the Principles of Care, and the specific recommendations set out in the psychologist’s report, are now met.

On the issue of whether or not to make a care order, she said: “There are two reasons why I consider it is necessary and proportionate that a Care Order is made. Firstly, it would give certainty as to how decisions will be made about JR's care, including where he lives and where he goes to school. The parents plainly care deeply about JR and want what is best for him. However, there have been situations where they and the LA have not agreed, in particular over the skiing holiday when HHJ Walker had to make an order preventing the parents from taking JR away. As long as JR remains accommodated under s.20, the prospect of that type of problem arising continues to exist.

“Secondly, although I accept that the LA has committed to a Care Plan which appropriately meets JR's needs, whether he is subject to a Care Order or not, I have little doubt that there would be a greater level of oversight if JR was under a Care Order than if he is accommodated under s.20. The reality is that the level of oversight of JR was significantly increased when HHJ Walker and I became involved. My judgement is that in practical terms, rather than necessarily legal theory, a Care Order will give greater confidence in the LA taking responsibility for his care.”

The judge noted that without the intervention of the Court and the Guardian, “it seems quite possible that JR would have been left in inappropriate placements with a lack of attention to his holistic needs”.

Applying the welfare checklist in s.1 Children Act 1989, Mrs Justice Lieven concluded that it was in JR's “best interests” for a Care Order to be made, and such an order was “necessary and proportionate”.

Lottie Winson