Member

As the noble Baroness said, Nuffield research found that 96.6% of children on a deprivation of liberty order under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court were already in care at the time of the application. Where the child is not in care, they may have significant disabilities that mean a deprivation of liberty order is needed to keep them safe. In those cases, seeking to consider these children looked after may not be needed or appropriate. Furthermore, the Children Act 1989 is clear that the court’s inherent jurisdiction should not be exercised if the same result can be achieved through existing statutory frameworks. Deeming a child looked after due to a deprivation of liberty order being made under the inherent jurisdiction would bypass existing legal frameworks that enable a child to become looked after. However, I am not wholly sure that I have fully addressed the detail of the points made by the noble Baroness in her contribution, and I will therefore look again at what she said and undertake to write to her.