Senior judge finds nine-year-old girl not being deprived of her liberty despite restrictions

Ms Justice Henke said in her judgment that she had to decide the impact of the AGNI case on the facts of this case and its interaction with the Children Act 1989. AGNI requires a multifactorial analysis of cases.

This case concerning child B was brought by Salford City Council. The court heard nine-year-old B has complex behavioural, emotional and developmental needs.

Since she was 10 months old she has been under the care of extended family member C and has no meaningful contact with her parents.

B requires intensive and close supervision at all times, both at home and in the community, the court was told. Her behaviour is unpredictable and can escalate rapidly, creating risks to herself and others.

In October 2025, Salford issued a C100 application seeking permission to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court and to apply for an order authorising the deprivation of B’s liberty.

The next month, HHJ Wright made an order that it was lawful and in the best interest of B that Salford be permitted to deprive her of her liberty at C’s home, though Salford was directed to use the minimum degree of force or restraint required and only when necessary.

Henke J compared B’s situation to that of the normal restrictions that might be placed on any nine-year-old child by a parent, and identified 13 restraints on B’s freedom, which she said "go beyond the everyday restrictions of a nine-year-old”.

The judge said that although B is a child in care and C is her registered paid foster carer, “from B's perspective this is her family home. She loves C, regards her as her mother”.

Henke J concluded: “I stand back and consider B’s concrete situation and the nature, cumulative effect and purpose of the restrictions.

“Having done so, I agree with the local authority and B’s Children’s Guardian that they do not amount to a deprivation of liberty.”

She added: “There is no confinement. B is happy and content with her lived experience. Article 5 is not engaged; no court authorisation is required and the proceedings are dismissed.”

Mark Smulian