header-logo header-logo

13 December 2023
Issue: 8053 / Categories: Legal News , Child law
printer mail-detail

Legal access could help children deprived of liberty

Increasing numbers of deprivation of liberty orders are being made against children, family law campaigners have warned. Yet, in the majority of cases, the parents or carers concerned have no access to legal advice

The charity, Family Rights Group is running a campaign to highlight these orders, which can be made by the family court if a local authority is concerned about risks to the child’s safety or the safety of others. Backing the campaign last week, the Law Society also expressed concern about the lack of legal aid for families.

Statistics published by Nuffield Family Justice Observatory (NFJO) in September showed 1,249 children were subject to the orders in the year to June 2023. The NFJO found that 88.5% of parents and carers were not represented at any hearings in applications made under the High Court’s jurisdiction. NFJO also reported children were sent more than 56 miles away on average to children’s homes, care home services or unregulated placements. 

Deprivation of Liberty Orders allow for children to be placed under severe restrictions. There was a 462% increase in these cases in the three years to 2020/21.

Law Society president Nick Emmerson said: ‘A parent whose child is subject to care proceedings is entitled to non-means-tested legal aid.

‘However, the same cannot be said for deprivation of liberty cases. Families are instead faced with a stringent means and merits test to establish if they can receive legal aid.

‘We call on the government to remove these barriers.’

Emmerson said: ‘The family court system is facing an increase in deprivation of liberty cases due to a reduction in the number of children in youth custody, a rise in the number of older children coming into care, falling numbers of inpatient child mental health beds and the closure of secure children’s homes.’

Issue: 8053 / Categories: Legal News , Child law
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll