Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards” (DoLS) or Childrens Deprivation of Life which the public call it is a legal framework in England Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland designed to protect the rights of individuals, including children, who may be deprived of their liberty in care settings, such as hospitals, care homes, or other supervised environments. Although DoLS typically applies to adults, there are situations where it could be relevant for children, especially those with severe disabilities or complex care needs. The Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) were introduced as part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 in England and Wales. They came into effect on 1 April 2009. The first notable case involving the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) specifically concerning children was Re A (A Child) [2010] EWCA Civ 94 – BAILII | One Pump Court: Re A (A Child) Case Details, decided by the Court of Appeal in February 2010 before LORD JUSTICE RICHARDS LORD JUSTICE McFARLANE LORD JUSTICE CHRISTOPHER CLARKE .

Re A (a child)

Citation

[2015] EWCA Civ 910

Where a party applied to withdraw an application for contact, as the father had when B was four years old, and the withdrawal would have an impact on the child’s welfare, the court had a duty to determine whether proceedings should continue despite the parties’ opinions, F (Children) (Contact Orders: Domestic Violence) [2005] EWCA Civ 499, [2005] 2 F.L.R. 950 applied. With hindsight the court could see the unfortunate consequences of the father’s decision at that time, but his reasons had been based entirely on B’s welfare. Normally it would be in a child’s best interests to have a full relationship with each of his or her parents. All the evidence about the relationship between B and his father when there had been regular contact was entirely positive: of a warm and loving relationship. There were no adverse findings against the father. W (Children) (Direct Contact), [2012] EWCA Civ 999, [2013] 1 F.L.R. 494 explained the right approach in such cases, and Re W applied. The problem in the instant case was an adult problem; not B’s. The judge had been entitled to decide that restarting contact after several years would not work. Nevertheless, the outcome was a tragedy for the father and even more so for B. Some family situations were not amenable to the blunt instrument of a judge making an order; this was such a case.

… Discussion

1. The starting point on any evaluation of issues relating to contact, and that is obviously the case in an intractable situation such as this, is that B’s welfare, both now and in the future, is to be the court’s paramount consideration. Now that approach has to take into account the provisions of section 1(2A), but this is not a matter that turns on dry statute law, in particular given that the provision was not in force before the judge and was not, Mr Adler candidly says, raised before him. It is and should be a given that it will normally be in the best interests of a child to grow up having a full, real and entirely ordinary relationship with each of his or her parents, notwithstanding the fact that they have separated and that there may be difficulties between the two of them as adults.
2. In this case the background indicates that the relationship between the Father and B in 2006 and 2007 was strikingly good, despite all that had gone before. Secondly, there had been absolutely no finding made against the Father of an adverse nature. Thirdly, all of the information in recent times about the Father, in terms of his life as it has gone forward but also his approach to B and his engagement with the process, despite the stresses and strains that will be on him, just as they are on the Mother, is entirely positive. He is described as a good man, a kind and loving father who had a very warm and close relationship with B. That is the starting point, but of course the situation has other complicating factors.
3. Before moving to the judge’s judgment against that starting point, I would stress the approach that is to be adopted in these cases, and in doing so repeat words that I said in the case of Re W (Direct Contact) [2012] EWCA Civ 999. Normally I would simply ask the transcriber to include these paragraphs in my judgment now, but for the benefit of the Mother, the Father and her partner who are in court, I propose to take the liberty of reading them out:

This case marked a significant moment in the application of DoLS to children, setting a precedent for how to assess and justify the deprivation of liberty in the context of childcare. A DoLS authorisation should be for as short a time as possible, and only up to a maximum of 12 months. Each DoLS authorisation will mention its end date.

If someone is subject to a high level of supervision, and is not free to leave the premises permanently, then it is almost certain that they are being deprived of their liberty some of these DoLS Orders are time dependent but can include:

• frequent use of sedation/medication to control behaviour
• regular use of physical restraint to control behaviour

Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and Their Impact on Children in Care Homes

The Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), sometimes referred to by the public as “Children’s Deprivation of Life,” is a legal framework in England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and Scotland designed to protect the rights of individuals, including children, who may be deprived of their liberty in care settings such as hospitals, care homes, or other supervised environments. Although DoLS typically applies to adults, there are situations where it may also be relevant for children, particularly those with severe disabilities or complex care needs. Article 5 of the Human Rights Act states that ‘everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his or her liberty [unless] in accordance with a procedure prescribed in law’. The Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) is the procedure prescribed in law when it is necessary to deprive of their liberty a resident or patient who lacks capacity to consent to their care and treatment in order to keep them safe from harm.

Deprivation of Liberty for Children
In theory, the deprivation of liberty for children should be carefully assessed, justified, and legally sanctioned to protect their safety and welfare. However, in reality, these safeguards are often not carefully assessed, not justified, and yet still legally sanctioned. There is just not the money in the care system we hear from Social Workers. This has led to a significant number of children being placed under Deprivation of Liberty (DoL) orders, often with severe and lasting consequences.

A Test from MCI

To test if a person who lacks capacity is deprived of his or her liberty the following questions must be asked:

Is E subject to continuous supervision and control?

AND

Is E not free to leave?

If the answer is ‘Yes’ to both, E is subject to a DoL!

BBC Case Study: Katy Baxter
Katy Baxter, at just 14 years old, was detained alone under a court order, far from her home in Bournemouth. She was supervised by two workers 24 hours a day and went for long periods without any contact with her family. “I wanted to see my nan and my sister. I couldn’t even call them because I wasn’t allowed a phone,” Katy told the BBC. “It made me mad… angry.”

Katy, now 18, is one of thousands of children in England and Wales to have been placed under DoL orders. The BBC has interviewed several young people who were subject to DoLs and are now speaking publicly about their experiences for the first time. They recounted stories of being cut off from their families, kept permanently under surveillance, and subjected to brutal—sometimes inappropriate—restraint. All reported that the experience had a detrimental impact on their long-term well-being.

Case Study: Emily
Emily Newbold-Smith, now 17, has wildly reportedly been detained by a criminal organization in Northern Ireland. It is presumed that an illegal DoLS has been employed by Southern Health and Social Trust in a Closed Material Procedure to contain her liberty. Since her abduction by a social worker, there has been no attempt for Emily to reach out, raising serious concerns about the legality and ethics of her detention. Emily, who will soon turn 18, has faced continuous coercive control since her abduction. This is also responsible for the failed letterbox contact and nonappearance in the single LAC meeting operated by the Trust. It’s essential to investigate whether Emily’s detention adheres to legal standards and human rights principles.

Growing Concerns and Public Perception
The use of DoL orders has grown twelve-fold since 2018, and this surge has drawn widespread criticism. Many children under these orders find themselves living in properties not designed for care, including temporary accommodations or even hotels, often in unfamiliar locations far from home. In the second half of 2022, the average DoL placement was more than 55 miles away from the child’s home.

This situation has been heavily criticized by England’s most senior family judge, who described it as a “crisis.” His concerns are echoed by the children’s commissioner for England, who has called the impact of these orders “absolutely horrific” and a “national scandal.”

Reports from Children in Care Homes
Disturbingly, some children who have emerged from these care homes reported being “jumped on” by staff—a term they used to describe being physically restrained or subdued, often in a forceful and frightening manner. These accounts underscore the excessive and potentially abusive use of restraint under the guise of DoLS. Such practices not only contravene the intended purpose of safeguarding but also contribute to an environment of fear and trauma for the children involved.

The Impact on Children’s Well-being
The misuse of DoLS in children’s care homes has profound implications for the well-being of the children involved. The unjustified deprivation of liberty, coupled with reports of physical restraint, can severely restrict their freedoms and contribute to an environment that is overly controlled and harmful to their emotional and psychological development. The quiet, subdued atmosphere often observed in these homes is a stark indicator of the restrictive measures being imposed, often without sufficient legal or ethical grounds.

It should be noted that using antidepressants in children’s homes to address issues such as the loss of parents can have severe consequences. The WebMD article highlights how antidepressants, while sometimes necessary, can lead to significant risks and side effects in children. Misusing these medications in an attempt to manage complex emotional issues without appropriate support can result in adverse outcomes and worsen the child’s situation. For more details, see the article here.

Practical Considerations and Legal Advice
Given the serious concerns surrounding the misuse of DoLS, it is crucial for parents, guardians, and professionals to seek legal advice if a child’s liberty is being deprived. Ensuring that any deprivation of liberty is legally justified and properly assessed is essential to protect the child’s rights and well-being.

---

If this article has impacted you, please be courageous and comment on the page. If you have faced legal frustrations, consider adding your case to those who feel the system is broken. Please note that this is on a secure server and requires validation data, which will be compared with the Family man database to ensure submissions can be verified. Do not hold back your emotions; this situation is truly horrific and evil.