View source for Re RK; YB v BCC (2010) EWHC 3355 (COP)

''(1) Given the terms of s20(8) [[Children Act 1989]] (that any person with parental responsibility may at any time remove the child) the provision of accommodation to a child under s20(1), (3), (4) or (5) will not ever give rise to a deprivation of liberty within the terms of [[Article 5]]. If the child is being accommodated under the auspices of a care order, interim or full, or if the child has been placed in secure accommodation under s25, then the position might be different. (2) In any event: (a) the objective element of deprivation of liberty was not remotely close to being met on the facts; (b) the subjective element was not met, as the parents had consented on RK's behalf; (c) RK's placement was at the behest of her parents and could not be imputed to the state.'' [Detailed summary to follow.]

==Related judgments==
[[Re RK; RK v BCC (2011) EWCA Civ 1305]]
*[[Re RK; YB v BCC (2010) EWHC 3355 (COP)]]

==Citations==
Citation on transcript: [2010] EWHC 3355 (COP) (Fam)

==Thanks==
{{thanks|Ruck Keene, Alex|39 Essex Chambers}}

==External link==
{{#bailii:(2010) EWHC 3355 (COP)|no}}

[[Media:Re RK; YB v BCC (2010) EWHC 3355 (COP).pdf|Transcript]] 

[[Category:Judgment available on MHLO]]

[[Category:Deprivation of liberty]]
[[Category:Brief summary]]
[[Category:Transcript]]
[[Category:2010 cases]]