Information for "Re V (Profound Disabilities) (2025) EWHC 200 (Fam)"
Basic information
| Display title | Re V (Profound Disabilities) [2025] EWHC 200 (Fam) |
| Default sort key | Re V (Profound Disabilities) (2025) EWHC 200 (Fam) |
| Page length (in bytes) | 1,237 |
| Page ID | 16199 |
| Page content language | en - English |
| Page content model | wikitext |
| Indexing by robots | Allowed |
| Number of redirects to this page | 0 |
| Counted as a content page | Yes |
| Page image |  |
Page protection
| Edit | Allow only users with "editing" permission (infinite) |
| Move | Allow only users with "editing" permission (infinite) |
Edit history
| Page creator | Jonathan (talk | contribs) |
| Date of page creation | 12:34, 6 February 2025 |
| Latest editor | Jonathan (talk | contribs) |
| Date of latest edit | 11:39, 6 March 2025 |
| Total number of edits | 7 |
| Total number of distinct authors | 1 |
| Recent number of edits (within past 90 days) | 7 |
| Recent number of distinct authors | 1 |
Page properties
SEO properties
Description | Content |
Article description: (description)This attribute controls the content of the description and og:description elements. | The local authority applied under s100 Children Act 1989 for declarations under the inherent jurisdiction that the proposed restrictions on a looked-after child were lawful under Article 5, Article 2 and Article 3. These restrictions included 2:1 or 1:1 supervision at all times, including when transported by vehicle and when in the community, and being monitored in his room by voice monitor and physical checks. The High Court decided that the reason V could not leave his care placement and required intimate support was because of his disabilities, not by reason of any action of the State, so no order was required. The proposed restrictions on mobile phone use were an appropriate exercise of the local authority's parental responsibility under the care order. |