View source for Birmingham City Council v D (2016) EWCOP 8

{{Case
|Date=2016/01/21
|NCN=[2016] EWCOP 8
|ICLR=[2016] WLR(D) 143
|ICLR ID=2016000884
|Essex issue=62
|Essex page=7
|Other citations=[2016] PTSR 1129, [2016] MHLO 5
|Court=Court of Protection
|Judges=Keehan
|Parties=Birmingham City Council, D, W
|Judicial history first case=Re D (A Child: deprivation of liberty) (2015) EWHC 922 (Fam)
|Sentence=Parental responsibility and DOL
|Summary=(1) A parent cannot consent to the confinement (i.e. the objective element of [[Article 5]] deprivation of liberty) of a child who has attained the age of 16. (2) The confinement was imputable to the state despite the accommodation being provided under s20 [[Children Act 1989]], as the local authority had taken a central role; in any event, even if D's confinement were a purely private affair the state would have a positive obligation under Article 5(1) to protect him. (3) The judge did not resile from his previous judgment that D's parents could consent to his confinement in hospital when he was under 16.
|External links=*{{link|https://www.brownejacobson.com/health/training-and-resources/legal-updates/2016/01/money-no-object-deprivation-of-liberty-for-16-17-year-olds-bottomless-resources-and-endless-state-imputability|Browne Jacobson, 'Money no object! Deprivation of liberty for 16/17 year olds, (bottomless?) resources and (endless?) state imputability' (29/1/16)|s}}
|Subject=Deprivation of liberty - children
|News=No
|RSS pubdate=2023/07/20 07:51:45 PM
}}