Secure accommodation and deprivation of liberty

Section 25 of the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989) (in England) and section 119 of the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 (SSW(W)A 2014) (in Wales) restrict the ability of local authorities to place and keep children in secure accommodation. Secure accommodation orders are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

See Practice Notes: Secure accommodation—general principles and Secure accommodation—procedure.

Without an order

Under ChA 1989, s 25 a child may be kept in secure accommodation without a court order for a maximum of 72 hours, whether or not consecutive, in any period of 28 days. Before doing so, the local authority must be satisfied that the statutory criteria are met and must consider the child's welfare—the welfare of the child will be a consideration of great importance, but is not paramount for the purposes of ChA 1989, s 25. The provisions of ChA 1989 (in England), and SSW(W)A 2014 (in Wales) also enable the local authority to act in order to protect the public from serious injury, even where inconsistent with promoting and

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Family News

Court not entitled to know whether offers made or indication given at private FDR (BC v BC)

Family analysis: Mr Justice Peel provides a user-friendly judgment confirming that paragraph 8 of the Financial Remedies Court Primary Principles document (which applies following an unsuccessful private FDR (pFDR)) goes too far, and that the court is not entitled to know whether offers were made or an indication given at a pFDR. The judgment is a corrective to that paragraph, and to its previous interpretation at circuit judge level, which may have led to a practice developing in some quarters of litigants ‘asserting that the pFDR ended when the other party left after the indication without further negotiating’. It is also further authority on the privileged nature of the FDR (and pFDR) process, and makes clear that only the basic factual details of the appointment are disclosable, ie whether or not it took place, whether both parties attended, the identities of the evaluator, where it took place and the duration. Written by David Wilkinson, solicitor at Slater Heelis.

Non-disclosure and pre-nuptial agreement (Helliwell v Entwistle)

Family analysis: The Court of Appeal allowed the husband’s appeal against the decision at first instance, which largely gave effect to a pre-nuptial agreement that made no financial provision for him, also making a lump sum of £400,000 to satisfy his assessed needs. The judgment demonstrates the approach to intentional non-disclosure in the context of a pre-nuptial agreement, synthesising the approach to non-disclosure adopted by the Supreme Court in Sharland v Sharland. Written by Katie Skinner, senior associate, chartered legal executive at Rayden Solicitors.

Family weekly highlights—14 August 2025

This week's edition of the Family weekly highlights includes details of the new Cafcass guidance on conflicting assessments in public law cases. The Court of Appeal’s decision on indemnity costs where there has been significant non-disclosure in negotiations for a pre-nuptial agreement is considered. Recent related judgments on the division of matrimonial assets where a sham trust is alleged and applications for the appointment of receivers are also considered. In addition, new content on applications under the Married Women’s Property Act 1882 has been added, including an overview, procedural guide and two Practice Notes.

Cafcass guidance on conflicting assessments in public law cases

The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass) has published new guidance for local authorities and Cafcass for cases where the views of the children’s guardian (and therefore their independent advice to the court) and the assessment of a local authority social worker and/or the independent reviewing officer fundamentally differ on the final care plan or interim arrangements for a child. The guidance applies to all children in care and supervision order applications under section 31 of the Children Act 1989 and deprivation of liberty applications. The guidance sets out the process that should be followed at any point during proceedings where a divergence arises and should be completed before final recommendations are submitted to court. The guidance requires that a pre-final hearing meeting be convened to identify and document the points of difference for the court. It includes suggestions for structuring the pre-final hearing meeting, a template agenda and a template for sharing the agreed rationale with the court. The guidance is not intended to be used to agree a joint position, rather to make sure that recommendations to court include a clear explanation about why the children’s guardian, the local authority social worker and/or the independent reviewing officer have reached fundamentally different positions. The explanation must set out what the points of difference are so that the judge in the case can better understand these. It remains for the court to decide what is safe and in the best interests of the child.