1. School Isolation (EBB v Gorse Academies Trust [2025] EWHC 1983 (Admin))
In EBB, three students spent between 39% and 50% of their school year either in suspension or in isolation. Parents argued that this prolonged exclusion interfered with the children’s psychological integrity, relationships, and development, thereby engaging their rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
The High Court disagreed. Mrs Justice Collins Rice held that, although school measures can in principle fall within Article 8 (see Costello-Roberts v UK, FO v Croatia), disciplinary isolation was “part and parcel” of education. She refused to extend Article 8 protection, leaving children without a remedy even when half of their education was effectively lost to isolation.
2. Financial Isolation (Child Trust Funds)
Since 2005, the UK Government has invested in Child Trust Funds (CTFs) as a universal policy to provide every child with an asset at 18. Public funds were paid in alongside parental or guardian contributions.
Yet today, around 430,000 young people including Emily — many of them in care or from vulnerable groups — cannot access their CTFs. They are financially excluded from resources that were specifically designed to give them security and autonomy in early adulthood.
This denial of access isolates children from full participation in commerce and society: they cannot use their funds for housing, education, or savings. It undermines their autonomy, personal development, and equal footing with peers — precisely the values Article 8 seeks to protect.
3. The Common Thread: Isolation as a System of Control
In both education and finance, isolation is framed as protective or corrective:
- Schools defend isolation as necessary discipline.
- Government justifies restricted access to CTFs as “security” until the system releases funds.
Yet in practice, both regimes cut children off from core aspects of life:
- School isolation denies social development and learning opportunities.
- Financial isolation denies entry into adult economic life.
Both interfere with a child’s dignity, autonomy, and development — the very heart of Article 8.
4. The Article 8 Contradiction
The inconsistency is stark:
- A child’s removal from family life (through care orders) is always treated as an Article 8 issue — the state must justify it as lawful, necessary, and proportionate.
- A child’s isolation in school is minimised, even when it lasts half a year.
- A child’s isolation from their own government-funded trust account is ignored, despite affecting hundreds of thousands of children.
If Article 8 does not cover prolonged isolation in school or structural exclusion from financial autonomy, its protection for children risks becoming hollow.1. Facts in Each Context
School Isolation – EBB v Gorse Academies Trust
- 3 pupils isolated/suspended 39–50% of a school year.
- Claimants argued cumulative exclusion engaged Article 8 (development, dignity, relationships).
- Court refused: isolation is “part and parcel” of school discipline.
CTF Isolation – 430,000 children
- Government created CTFs, paying public money into each child’s account.
- 430,000 children including Emily — disproportionately care-experienced and vulnerable — never accessed their funds.
- They have been excluded from financial participation in adult life (education, housing, savings).
2. Form of Isolation
- School: Exclusion from classroom peers and learning opportunities.
- CTF: Exclusion from economic autonomy, denied access to savings at 18.
Both are systemic, not one-off acts: they operate over months or years, and they reshape the child’s future opportunities.
3. Impact on Article 8 Interests
| Article 8 Dimension | School Isolation (EBB) | CTF Isolation (430,000 children) |
|---|---|---|
| Personal development | Loss of education & growth during key school years. | Loss of financial independence at transition to adulthood. |
| Autonomy | Surrender of control to school’s disciplinary policy. | No control over their own state-funded resources. |
| Relationships | Separation from peers, risk of stigma. | Excluded from equal economic footing with peers; cannot participate equally in commerce. |
| Dignity / Integrity | Treated as discipline subjects rather than rights-holders. | Treated as “lost accounts,” reducing identity to paperwork error. |
4. Legal Contradiction
- In EBB, Article 8 was narrowed — the Court held prolonged isolation in school does not engage rights.
- In CTF policy, Article 8 has never been tested — despite mass exclusion of 430,000 children from autonomy and development.
- Strasbourg precedent (Costello-Roberts, FO v Croatia) shows Article 8 can cover school measures; by analogy, it should also cover financial exclusion.
5. Conclusion
Both EBB’s school isolation and the systemic isolation of CTF children including Emily are examples of the state cutting young people off from core parts of life under the guise of “discipline” or “security.”
- In education → children lose social and developmental opportunities.
- In finance → children lose their economic start in life, even though government itself invested in those accounts.
If Article 8 is too weak to protect children from either form of isolation, then children’s rights to dignity, autonomy, and equal development are being undermined both in the classroom and in wider society.
Article 8 exists to secure dignity, autonomy, and development. Strasbourg has already recognised that even minor incidents in school can fall within its scope. Prolonged isolation — whether in classrooms or in access to vital financial assets — should plainly engage Article 8.
By treating school isolation as outside Article 8 and ignoring financial isolation through the loss of CTFs, the state is applying children’s rights inconsistently. Both forms of isolation undermine children’s ability to grow, learn, and participate equally in society. Both demand recognition as human rights issues.
thestealingofemily.co.uk 
Leave a comment