Using Case Law and Legal Summaries to support CPD

Deprivation of children and young people’s liberty can be complex to understand and often feature in published judgments. Whilst a social worker may usually be allocated in these circumstances, understanding the legal processes around deprivation of liberty can be helpful for all supporting professionals. 

The 2025 annual summary provides an overview of these cases, including a deprivation of liberty special edition. 

The changes introduced by the reforms will see non-social work professionals holding child in need cases. 

In January 2025, the Court of Appeal considered the meaning of the definition of a child in need.

This judicial review explored events in 2021, when TW was 16 and approached the local authority for housing support. The local authority did arrange housing and support, but it determined that he was not a ‘child in need’, and therefore was not being provided with accommodation as a child in need under the Children Act 1989 (CA).

As a result, TW did not become a ‘former relevant child’ owed continuing duties into adulthood under section 23C, CA. It was that consequence that led to these proceedings and the dispute about the proper interpretation of what the local authority had done. Along the way, the Court of Appeal grappled with the meaning of the definition of a child in need. The High Court had initially rejected TW's claim. The Court of Appeal agreed, and rejected his appeal also. 

Support for young people who need support regarding their gender identity is an important topic in social care. In 2024, two cases were summarised regarding the treatment of young people with puberty blockers where the parents of each child disagreed with the treatment.

In March 2025, a further update was provided, detailing that the mother appealed with permission of the Court of Appeal. The mother had still not been granted a prohibited steps order, nor a declaration that the court's oversight would be needed for a child under the age of 18 to be prescribed puberty blockers. Instead, the Court of Appeal decided that the decision to discharge the interim orders was wrong. What the High Court should have done was to adjourn the case, leaving the issues, and the case, open. In saying that the case should have been adjourned rather than ended with no order, the Court of Appeal said that the issues about puberty blockers for children were in a state of flux. 

The Court of Protection clarified the fundamental nature of deprivation of liberty orders (DOLs).

This case concerned ‘Emma’, an 18-year-old woman with diagnoses of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and autism spectrum disorder. In 2023, Emma was detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 (MHA) and subsequently she resided at a specialist placement. Although the local authority had originally sought authorisation from the Court of Protection for this placement, by the time of this hearing in December it ‘was applying to withdraw the application in this Court, and to quote, "lift the DOLs"’. 

In May 2025, the High Court found that there was an arguable case that a woman’s detention under the MHA was unlawful.

This judgment concerns a claim by a woman, ‘C1’, that she was unlawfully detained under the MHA, and that, while detained, medication was forced on her in a ‘degrading and inhuman matter’. The defending NHS trust argued that the case should be struck out on several procedural grounds. 

The Upper Tribunal gave guidance on assessing a person’s capacity to appoint a legal representative and on what a representative should do when they consider that their appointment is no longer appropriate.  

This case concerned two appeals against decisions by the first-tier Tribunal (mental health), both of which concern individuals detained under sections 37 and 41 of the MHA.