Judge sets out learning from positive Deprivation of Liberty case involving young woman turning 18

In N (A Child), Re (Deprivation of Liberty Orders) [2025] EWHC 1690 (Fam) (03 July 2025), Ms Justice Henke highlighted the importance of multi-disciplinary working “running in parallel” to court proceedings, and observed that in the present case, a “seamless transition” between adult and children's social services was “properly anticipated and acted on”.

The application before the judge was made by the local authority on 10 February 2025 and issued the next day. It was an application for permission to invoke the inherent jurisdiction and, if that were permitted, for an order authorising the local authority to deprive N, a young woman, of her liberty.

N was 17 years old when the application was before the court. She was 18 at the time judgment was handed down.

Outlining the background to the case, the judge said: “As a child in the care of her parents, N experienced domestic abuse, physical chastisement and parental substance misuse. In 2022, she was made the subject of a care order and placed in residential care. She regularly ran from there, she self-harmed and attempted to take her own life.”

After approximately a year in secure accommodation, N returned to residential care with a court order authorising the deprivation of her liberty being put in place to keep her safe. However, that placement broke down.

After a number of further moves over the next two years, N was described as being in a state of “repeat and repeating crisis”, moving between unsuccessful placements, the hospital and a police station.

On 14 February 2025, the judge expressed her “dissatisfaction” about the way the case was being managed.

She recorded on the face of her order that the court expected senior management from both relevant hospital trusts to engage in “constructive discussions” to ensure N spent the minimum time possible in police custody.

Later that day, a Multi-Disciplinary Team meeting was held to discuss N. That evening, she was re-admitted to hospital under the Mental Health Act 1983.

Three days later, the local authority made an urgent application within the proceedings.

The judge noted: “I was told that the s.5(2) order would expire at 3:03am and N was stating she would leave the hospital the minute it expired. The local authority, however, did not have a suitable placement for her.”

Ms Justice Henke continued: “By the time the application came before me, the NHS Foundation trust was content to provide N with a bed for as long as reasonably required on condition that the local authority provided the staff to enable N to be kept safely on the ward whilst the local authority looked for a secure placement for her. To enable N to be kept safe on the ward, I permitted the local authority to invoke the inherent jurisdiction and exercised that jurisdiction to deprive N of her liberty.”

The authorisation for N's deprivation of liberty would expire just before midnight on 3 March 2025.

On 3 March 2025, the local authority's application came before HHJ Jordan. A placement had been found for N. It was a sole placement and was available for her to move into that day.

The court authorised significant deprivations of her liberty to enable N to be kept safe at the new placement.

On 7 March, the case was listed before Ms Justice Henke for further review.

She said: “On that occasion I was told that there had been a series of significant incidents since 3 March 2025 including an incident of self-harming by cutting.”

N absconded and was found in the early hours of the next day. She was taken to a police station where she was kept whilst the application was before the judge.

“The police intended to take N to hospital for further mental health assessment. They remained with her at the hospital until registered mental health nurses attended. The local authority had, I was told, made clear to the hospital that they must be notified forthwith of any plan for discharge and there must be a discharge planning process.

“In the meanwhile, the local authority told me they were taking immediate action to ensure N's placement was now physically secure and that she had somewhere safe to go on discharge.”

The judge listed the application by the local authority before herself on 12 March 2025.

By then, N had been discharged back to her placement and was reported to be more settled.

Ms Justice Henke said: “The level of supervision that it was necessary to authorise to keep her safe was reduced. Thereafter there were approximately monthly reviews before me to consider whether the deprivations of liberty previously sanctioned remained necessary and proportionate.

“In parallel a step-down plan was implemented; there was liaison between children's social care and adult social care teams to ensure she had ongoing support post-18 and close interagency working between social care and mental health and therapeutic agencies. They all worked with N who engaged with the help and support that was offered to her. N's stated aim was to be free of restrictions by her eighteenth birthday.”

The last hearing before the judge was in May 2025. She was informed that “all were in agreement” that N was now able to make better choices, be independent and to make positive decisions for her own welfare.

There was a plan in place for her to move to a more appropriate property to allow her to progress being fully independent.

The judge was told that the local authority no longer sought the court's authorisation to deprive N of her liberty. She said: “The current application was no longer necessary, and the proceedings could conclude.”

Outlining the purpose of the judgment, Ms Justice Henke said that N's Guardian had noted a judgment was necessary to provide “finality and closure” for N.

The judge said: “When the application in N's case came before this court, she, like many young people subject to a Deprivation of Liberty application, was in crisis. The chronology in the middle of February 2025 was cyclic and harmful. Her needs were not being met. She was not safe. There was a real risk she would take steps to commit suicide and succeed.

“[…] It is, however, worthy of comment that the trajectory of N's case changed once there was multi-disciplinary working. From the multi-disciplinary meeting on 14 February 2025, there was joined up thinking and a plan began to be formulated that met N's needs. It is not perfect, but it was a plan with which N could and does engage with. Like any good plan, it had an objective and a timeline. The aim was that N should be free from any restrictions other than that which she chose to impose on herself by her eighteenth birthday. It recognised that she was soon to be an autonomous adult with capacity.”

Finally, Ms Justice Henke said: “Often, we learn from what went wrong but we can also learn from what went well.”

She outlined the following learning points from the case:

1. “Working together between the statutory agencies is key. Once the statutory agencies came together at a multi-disciplinary meeting, a plan began to be formulated to meet N's current needs and her anticipated needs in adulthood. The multidisciplinary process ran in parallel to the court proceedings with the court being updated on its progress.
2. N participated by speaking to me. She was listened to and her wishes and feelings were factored into decision making whilst her welfare remained my paramount consideration. She wanted to be free of restriction when she turned eighteen. That provided a focus for her and for the agencies. It influenced and shaped a step-down plan.
3. Within the court proceedings, a step-down plan was drafted by the applicant. It was considered at each interim hearing. At each interim hearing, only those restrictions which were likely to be necessary and proportionate were permitted.
4. The case was timetabled and a final hearing listed.
5. The applicant local authority was reminded of its obligations under the Care Leaver legislative scheme and went on to fulfil its statutory obligations. N now has a Pathway plan, a key worker and a personal adviser. The effective implementation of the Care Leavers legislative scheme should run alongside the court proceedings. Sadly, this court's experience is that sometimes that scheme is not observed or not fully observed as it should be.
6. N was referred to adult social services which enabled the seamless transition N deserved. As an obviously vulnerable young person whose need for care and support was unlikely to end on her eighteenth birthday, a seamless transition between adult and children's social services was properly anticipated and acted on.”

Concluding the judgment, Ms Justice Henke said: “The application before me has perhaps turned out better than could have been anticipated in February 2025. I acknowledge N's part in that. She has chosen to engage and to work towards a common goal. […] I commend both N's key social worker in this case and her Guardian. Both have been strong advocates for N and determined to ensure her needs are met.”

Lottie Winson