Spotlight
Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Spotlight
Latest articles
Practical aspects to assessing competence in children
Rebecca Stevens, Partner, Royds Withy KingThis is an article regarding the practical aspects to assessing competence in children. The article explores a range of practicalities, such as meeting a...
Scrumping the crop of recent pension decisions
Rhys Taylor, 36 Family and 30 Park PlaceJonathan Galbraith, Mathieson Consulting2020 has thus far proved to be a memorable year for all the wrong reasons, but nonetheless it remains an interesting one...
Conduct in financial remedies – when is it now a relevant consideration?
Rachel Gillman, 1 GC/Family LawThis article provides an overview of all aspects of financial misconduct following the recent decision of Mostyn J in OG v AG [2020] EWFC 52, wherein all aspects of...
The treatment of RSUs/Stock Options in light of XW v XH
Peter Mitchell QC, 29 Bedford RowStock Options and Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) are frequently encountered by the Family Court when dividing property on divorce or dissolution of a Civil Partnership....
Hundreds of thousands of companies worldwide fall victims to hackers every year. Is your firm one of them?
SPONSORED CONTENT Image source: Information is beautifulYou and other lawyers and legal assistants in your firm likely have accounts on the hacked websites listed in the image above. If a hacker...
View all articles
Authors

VULNERABLE ADULT/CHILD WELFARE: Re A and B (Equality and Human Rights Commission Intervening) [2010] EWHC 978 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:28 PM
Slug : vulnerable-adult-child-welfare-re-a-and-b-equality-and-human-rights-commission-intervening-2010-ewhc-978-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jun 29, 2010, 11:50 AM
Article ID : 91127

(Family Division; Munby LJ sitting as a judge of the Family Division; 4 May 2010)

In the two separate cases, a child and an adult both suffered from a rare syndrome resulting in them lacking capacity. They were cared for at home by their families and were locked into their rooms at night, although nobody suggested that they would be better cared for in any other environment. The issue was whether the care at home involved deprivation of liberty.  

Held that the child and the adult were not deprived of their liberty, instead their liberty was restricted. To engage Art 5, deprivation of liberty must be imputable to the State. Notwithstanding local authority's duties, it was not sufficiently directly involved to engage the State's responsibility.  In any event, while the subjective element of deprivation of liberty was satisfied, the objective element was not. A domestic setting could involve deprivation of liberty, but typically not. Re MIG and MEG [2010] EWHC 785 (Fam) approved. Declaration made that there was no deprivation of liberty.

__________________________________________________________________

Family Law Reports

Family Law Reports are relied upon by the judiciary, barristers and solicitors and the reports are cited daily in court and in judgments.

They contain verbatim case reports of every important Family Division, Court of Appeal, House of Lords and European courts case, and also includes practice directions, covering the whole range of family law, public and private child law.

 

Categories :
  • Archive
  • Judgments
Tags :
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from