We represented a young person with highly complex needs, including several neurodivergent conditions, and significant mental health difficulties. Our client had experienced a long history of instability, including repeated hospital admissions, episodes of self-harm, and multiple placement breakdowns.

Background

The Local Authority had sought and obtained a series of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) orders through the High Court to manage the significant risks to our client’s safety. These orders authorised highly restrictive measures within specialist placements, including constant supervision and limitations on freedom of movement.

Despite extensive support, our client’s journey through the care system was marked by repeated disruptions. Placements broke down due to escalating risks, including absconding and serious incidents requiring emergency intervention. As a result, the case remained before the High Court for an extended period, with frequent hearings and ongoing judicial oversight.

Key Issues

We represented our client throughout the proceedings, working closely with the Children’s Guardian and ensuring that our client’s voice remained central to all decision-making. This included:

• Attending and advocating at numerous High Court hearings;

• Ensuring that the court was fully informed of our client’s wishes and feelings;

• Challenging aspects of care planning where necessary

• Supporting a multi-agency approach involving health, education, and social care;

• Assisting the court in navigating complex issues around capacity, autonomy, and risk.

A key aspect of our role was ensuring that our client’s lived experiences, particularly their mistrust of previous care arrangements and their desire for a more stable and familiar environment, were properly understood and given weight.

Key Issues

The case raised several complex and sensitive issues, including:

• Whether highly restrictive placements remained proportionate and necessary;

• The difficulties in identifying suitable specialist placements;

• The impact of repeated placement breakdowns on our client’s wellbeing;

• Tensions between the Local Authority and family regarding appropriate support;

• Transition planning as our client approached adulthood.

Importantly, the case demonstrated the challenges faced by young people with complex needs where standard care models do not adequately meet their individual circumstances.

Our Involvement

Following the breakdown of yet another placement, our client returned to the family home. Initially, there were concerns about whether this arrangement could be sustained safely without the level of restrictions previously imposed.

Through careful advocacy and ongoing monitoring, it became clear that our client was more settled in the home environment. Notably:

• There were no significant incidents following the return home;

• Our client was able to re-engage positively with education;

• Relationships within the family strengthened;

• Our client demonstrated improved stability and progress.

We ensured that the court and professionals recognised this change and that the focus shifted from restrictive placement-based care to a coordinated support plan within the family home.

Outcome

The Local Authority ultimately accepted that no further court orders were required and proposed the conclusion of proceedings. The court was invited to make no order, reflecting the significant progress made.

Our client remained at home with appropriate support being developed around them. This represented a major shift from highly restrictive care arrangements to a more proportionate and person-centred outcome.

Crucially:

• Proceedings concluded without the need for ongoing orders;

• Our client achieved the outcome they had consistently expressed a wish for, returning home;

• A support framework was put in place to promote long-term stability;

• The transition to adulthood was able to proceed with greater independence and dignity.

Shortly after proceedings concluded, our client reached adulthood with no further orders in place which was a positive and empowering outcome following a long and complex legal journey.

Our client was represented by Joint Head of the Family & Childcare Department, Max Konarek throughout the proceedings.

Conclusion

This case highlights the importance of robust representation for children and young people, particularly in complex High Court proceedings involving deprivation of liberty and significant mental health challenges.

Our involvement ensured that our client’s voice remained central, that restrictive measures were continually scrutinised, and that the ultimate care plan reflected their individual needs and progress.

The successful outcome demonstrates what can be achieved through persistence, collaboration, and child-focused advocacy.