Insights from Tameside MBC v K, Y and N [2025] EWHC 1690 (Fam), as outlined by Graeme Bentley.
The judgment of Henke J in Tameside MBC v K, Y and N provides a stark illustration of the risks that arise where vulnerable older children are subject to repeated short‑term interventions without effective multi‑agency coordination or a clear plan for transition. Although the factual circumstances were extreme, the learning points identified by the court have wider application in deprivation of liberty cases involving older children.
Background
This concerns a 17-year-old N, the subject of a care order, described as bright and capable and with insight and who, although legally represented, advocated for herself. She struggled with her mental health [3]. She had a background of insecurity and trauma and had previously absconded, being placed previously in secure accommodation at one point and pursuant to DOLS orders on several other occasions over recent years. She posed a risk to herself (including of suicide) and to others.
When the most recent application was made to the Court in February 2025, she was described as being in a state of repeat and repeating crisis [4]. The judgment describes an alarming sequence of events over the following weeks where N is described as having been “locked in a revolving door” between hospital beds for s.136 assessment, police stations following police protection and attempts by the local authority at placement – on various occasions, she continued to leave hospital or accommodation when she was free to do so. The Judge was so concerned that she gave permission for release of the papers to the Official Solicitor in order to consider any cause for damages that N may have against any of the authorities entrusted with securing her welfare and protection.
Judicial Observations and Learning Points
By the time that judgment was given, matters had settled significantly with there being no need for continued restrictions. The Judge took the opportunity [24] to set out a number of general points of learning, many of which will be familiar to practitioners, but which bear repeating:
a. Working together between the statutory agencies is key. Once the statutory agencies came together at a multi-disciplinary meeting, a plan began to be formulated to meet N’s current needs and her anticipated needs in adulthood. The multidisciplinary process ran in parallel to the court proceedings with the court being updated on its progress.
b. N participated by speaking to me. She was listened to and her wishes and feelings were factored into decision making whilst her welfare remained my paramount consideration. She wanted to be free of restriction when she turned eighteen. That provided a focus for her and for the agencies. It influenced and shaped a step-down plan.
c. Within the court proceedings, a step-down plan (a route-map out of restrictions) was drafted by the applicant. It was considered at each interim hearing. At each interim hearing, only those restrictions which were likely to be necessary and proportionate were permitted.
d. The case was timetabled and a final hearing listed.
e. The applicant local authority was reminded of its obligations under the Care Leaver legislative scheme (see ss.23A-E of the Children Act 1989 and the Care Leavers Regulations 2010) and went on to fulfil its statutory obligations. N now has a Pathway plan, a key worker and a personal adviser. The effective implementation of the Care Leavers legislative scheme should run alongside the court proceedings. Sadly, this court’s experience is that sometimes that scheme is not observed or not fully observed as it should be.
f. N was referred to adult social services which enabled the seamless transition N deserved. As an obviously vulnerable young person whose need for care and support was unlikely to end on her eighteenth birthday, a seamless transition between adult and children’s social services was properly anticipated and acted on. Section 17ZH of the Children Act 1989 is an often-overlooked provision. It deals with the transition of assessments of children under s.17 Children Act 1989 and adults under the Care Act. The spirit of the policy which underpins that section was observed in this case.
Points of practice
- We are likely to encounter cases where the social work team is concerned about the input of other agencies and communication or co-operation generally. We can expect in such cases that the court will expect evidence of our attempts to bridge the gap which may well include the need for urgent liaison between senior management; there may also be cases where it is necessary to join another body such as the relevant health agency and this should be used, wherever possible to arrange and record appropriate professional meeting.
- The voice of the child themselves, albeit in a situation of acute vulnerability, needs to be heard and taken into account.
- There needs to be as clear an exit strategy / step down plan as possible, providing clear milestones for the young person which they can achieve to make progress (or by which any stepping up may have to be measured).
- The case should be timetabled as far as possible rather than go from one review to another based simply upon the uncertainty of the situation. Equally of course there may be the need for urgent review hearings, on rare occasions where there is a clear and immediate danger from waiting, out of hours.
- The overall duties of the Local Authority towards care leavers must not be forgotten amidst the immediate crisis.
- There needs to be a clear plan for transition to adult services (and, if the subject lacks capacity, consideration of the Court of Protection) – this should never be left on the basis of being something to review at the age of 17 ½ years.
Graeme Bentley is a Principal Solicitor at Invicta Law and Accredited Member of the Law Society’s Children Panel.
Disclaimer: This article does not constitute legal advice and is provided for general information purposes only. Published 13 April 2026.
