The data reported in this briefing relates to all applications issued by the national deprivation of liberty court. It covers information included on the C66 application form – the form used to apply for an order under the high court inherent jurisdiction in relation to children. Data is extracted and recorded by court staff and analysed by Nuffield Family Justice Observatory. In July 2022 the President of the Family Division launched the national deprivation of liberty court. Based at the Royal Courts of Justice, it deals with all new applications seeking authorisation to deprive children of their liberty under the inherent jurisdiction and will run for a 12-month pilot phase initially. The Nuffield Family Justice Observatory was invited to collect and publish data on these applications. This monthly briefing highlights high-level data trends. n the first two months of the national deprivation of liberty court, there were 237 applications – 101 in July and 136 in August. The applications were made by 96 different local authorities and 5 hospital or mental health trusts.

This free course describes the principles and criteria underpinning the assessment of mental capacity and decision making in the UK. The course begins by looking at what mental capacity – and the lack of it – means. You will be introduced to various groups of people who are more likely to lack mental capacity, but you will also learn why it is relevant to everyone. You will look at what can be done to help someone to make a decision themselves and the principles and steps that enable people to judge, fairly, whether someone has capacity or not. You will be introduced to the legislation in the UK and will see how it supports and protects people who may lack capacity. [First Published: 15/12/2016; Updated: 20/01/2020].

This practice guide has been commissioned by the Department of Health to help frontline social and health professionals decide whether an individual they are concerned with may be deprived of their liberty due to the type of care or treatment that they are receiving or the level of restrictive practices that they are subject to. It focuses on the practical application of the legal principles. Part I provides details of the legal framework that governs deprivation of liberty and outlines the central principles of Article 5 European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). It then summarises the key elements of the Cheshire West decision. Part II details the most common settings in which a deprivation of liberty may occur: hospitals; psychiatric care; care homes; supported living services, such a shared lives schemes and extra care housing; Deprivation of liberty at home; and under 18s. For each setting the guidance identifies some of the factors that may point towards there being a deprivation of liberty; suggests scenarios which are very likely to/may/or not amount to a deprivation; and poses a number of questions that professionals can ask themselves when making decisions. The document includes links case law throughout. Part III provides summaries of key legal cases and further information and resources. The guidance is primarily relevant to the position in England and Wales. Quick reference guides covering each individual setting are also available.

Legal trainer Belinda Schwehr sets out what practitioners need to consider in relation to cases where a child may be deprived of liberty.

CDC’s case law digest service provides essential updates on the latest judicial decisions affecting disabled children and young people and those with SEN.

D was a 16-year-old boy who had been diagnosed with ADHD, mild learning disability, Asperger’s syndrome and Tourette’s syndrome. He had previously been detained in a psychiatric unit but was discharged to a residential home. The residential unit was funded by the local authority with his parent’s consent under section 20 of the Children Act 1989. All parties agreed that D was deprived of his liberty. The issue was whether D’s parents were able to consent on his behalf and whether the arrangements were imputable to the State. The local authority argued that the effect of the parents’ consent under section 20 of the Children Act 1989 meant that D’s placement and confinement were not imputable to the state, but this argument was rejected by the court. The local authority also stressed that the outcome of this decision would have significant resource implications for all local authorities but this argument was also rejected.