Deprivation of liberty case: Effective multi-agency collaboration

Re N (A Child) (Deprivation of Liberty Orders) [2025] EWHC 1690 (Fam) is a case in which the judge identifies elements of constructive and effective working by the statutory agencies involved.

The case concerns a young person, N, who was initially subject to several restrictive deprivation of liberty (DoL) orders. However, following coordinated efforts by the health and social care bodies, all restrictions were lifted by N’s 18th birthday in accordance with her wishes.

Below is a summary of the background to this matter and key learning points for health and social care providers to consider. 

Our expert team of health and social care lawyers is available to assist with questions or issues concerning deprivation of liberty for children, young people or adults.

Background

The case concerns N, a bright and capable young person who had suffered significant trauma and abuse during childhood, leading to challenging and extreme behaviours, including self-harm. She was made subject to a care order in 2022 and placed in numerous residential, secure and therapeutic placements, which either broke down or from which she absconded. Various restrictive court-authorised DoL orders were made to keep her safe. 

By late 2024, N’s self-harming and suicidal behaviour had escalated, causing significant mental health concerns. She was detained under section 136 of the Mental Health Act (MHA) on numerous occasions but did not meet the criteria for detention under section 2 or section 3 of the Act. 

Matters came to a head in February 2025, when N’s therapeutic placement served notice to her as it felt unable to keep her safe, and no alternative placement could be found. 

The judge’s warning

Proceedings began urgently on 11 February 2025, while N was in hospital awaiting a mental health assessment. With no safe placement available for her on discharge, N left hospital and was found intoxicated in a town centre expressing suicidal intent. This led to further police detention and mental health assessments under section 136 MHA. N had to wait extended periods before she could be assessed and was held in police custody during this time, as it was deemed the safest place for her. 

The court expressed dissatisfaction with how N’s case was being managed and required senior management from both the local authority and NHS Trusts to engage constructively. Following a multi-disciplinary meeting, N was re-admitted to hospital and the court authorised significant deprivations of liberty to keep her safe while a suitable placement was found. A new placement was secured by 3 March 2025, with the court again authorising extensive restrictions to keep N safe. 

Multi-agency collaboration and planning leads to improvement

Despite some initial incidents, N soon became more settled at her new placement. Through monthly reviews and a multi-agency step-down plan, N's situation gradually improved. She engaged positively with support services and expressed a strong desire to reach adulthood without restrictions on her liberty.

By the final hearing on 21 May 2025, all parties agreed that N had become more independent and could make better decisions about her welfare. She had secured employment and was looking to her future. The local authority sought no more DoL orders and the proceedings were concluded.

Learning for future cases

The judgment was written at N's Guardian's request to provide finality and closure for N, helping her to draw a line under her past and understand her own "journey". 

However, the judge, Ms Justice Henke, also emphasised that organisations could “learn from what went well" in N’s case. She identified several key factors that contributed to the successful outcome. These included: 

• Effective multi-disciplinary working between the statutory agencies, which ran in parallel to the court proceedings with the court being updated on its progress.
• N's participation in the proceedings. She spoke to the judge, was listened to and her wishes factored into decision-making. Her desire to be free from restrictions by the age of 18 provided a focus for her and the agencies.
• The development of a step-down plan (“route map out of restrictions”), which was drafted by the local authority. It was regularly reviewed at interim hearings and only necessary and proportionate restrictions were permitted. The plan had a clear objective and a timeline.
• The local authority fulfilling its “care leaver” obligations by providing N with a pathway plan, key worker and personal adviser.
• Child and adult social care services working together to ensure a seamless transition to adult services. 

The permissive nature of DoL orders

Ms Justice Henke recognised the difficulties of managing children and young people like N, who exhibit challenging and extreme behaviours but who often fall outside the statutory schemes that would permit their detention. They often do not meet MHA detention criteria, and have capacity to make decisions about care, support and treatment, preventing use of the Mental Capacity Act. With limited secure accommodation available, they frequently end up in unregulated placements with restrictive DoL orders for extended periods, whilst awaiting a suitable placement. 

Ms Justice Henke therefore reminded the statutory agencies about the permissive nature of DoL orders, emphasising that they do not contain a prescriptive list of restrictions that must be imposed, but rather a menu of what may be imposed by the authorities if it is necessary and proportionate to do so to safeguard the young person. The least restrictive option must be used at all times.