Secure accommodation and deprivation of liberty

Section 25 of the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989) (in England) and section 119 of the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 (SSW(W)A 2014) (in Wales) restrict the ability of local authorities to place and keep children in secure accommodation. Secure accommodation orders are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

See Practice Notes: Secure accommodation—general principles and Secure accommodation—procedure.

Without an order

Under ChA 1989, s 25 a child may be kept in secure accommodation without a court order for a maximum of 72 hours, whether or not consecutive, in any period of 28 days. Before doing so, the local authority must be satisfied that the statutory criteria are met and must consider the child's welfare—the welfare of the child will be a consideration of great importance, but is not paramount for the purposes of ChA 1989, s 25. The provisions of ChA 1989 (in England), and SSW(W)A 2014 (in Wales) also enable the local authority to act in order to protect the public from serious injury, even where inconsistent with promoting and

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Family News

Acquiring parental responsibility under section 4(1)(a) of the Children Act 1989—non-biological fathers (KL v BA)

Family analysis: In KL v BA the court considered whether the effect of a declaration of non-parentage in respect of a man who was not married to a child's mother and was named on the child's birth certificate as the father, but whom subsequent genetic testing showed was not the child's biological father, was to render his putative acquisition of parental responsibility under section 4(1)(a) of the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989) void ab initio, or whether he had and retained parental responsibility that could only be removed by order of the court. Aimee Jones, solicitor at Sternberg Reed considers the decision.

Family weekly highlights—6 February 2025

This week's edition of Family weekly highlights includes details of guidance from the Family Justice Council for legal practitioners working with neurodivergent users of the family justice system, additional funding for the pathfinder courts pilot scheme and the extension of the family mediation voucher scheme. Recent judgments including the Court of Appeal’s decision to reverse the anonymisation of family court judges, consideration of overseas adoption and maintenance pending suit and legal service payment orders are also considered. Three new Practice Notes on financial provision for children over 18 are also set out.

Habeas corpus in Care proceedings (Care orders and the limits of habeas corpus (The Father v Worcestershire County Council)

Family analysis: The Supreme Court was concerned with the question of whether habeas corpus can be used as a remedy where children are placed in foster care via a care order and whether the making of a care order results in ‘detention’. On considering the primary legislation relating to care orders and the legislative regime which establishes the Family Court, neither contain clear words excluding habeas corpus, however the Supreme Court decided that there are other reasons why habeas corpus cannot be used to challenge a care order and highlighted the appropriate routes of appeal. Teertha Gupta KC at 4PB examines the issues.

Family court judges’ anonymisation reversed by Court of Appeal (Tickle & Summers v BBC and others)

Family analysis: The murder of ten-year-old Sara Sharif by her father and step-mother continues to dominate the UK news. Following her death, journalists (Louise Tickle and Hannah Summers) and major news organisations sought disclosure of documents and information from the historical Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989) proceedings concerning Sara and her siblings, including the relevant judges’ names. Despite the judges involved in those proceedings having made no application in respect of their own anonymity, Mr Justice Williams nonetheless included in his disclosure order a provision that their names were not to be published. The appeals against Williams J’s decision were successful on each of the three grounds advanced. He had lacked jurisdiction to order the judges’ anonymisation and there had been serious procedural irregularities owing to the lack of submissions and evidence on the anonymisation issue. The Court of Appeal also disapproved of the judge’s use of anecdotal material and his own experiences to try to shore up his judgment. Williams J was further criticised for his unfair treatment of the journalists and Channel 4. Publication of the judges’ names has now taken place in accordance with the Court of Appeal’s decision to ensure a short interval of seven days occurred during which time HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) was required to put in place any protective measures. David Wilkinson, solicitor at Slater Heelis, examines the issues.