High Court judge criticises lack of suitable placement for vulnerable 15-year-old in “Catch 22” situation

In Essex County Council v ST and others (Deprivation of Liberty) [2026] EWHC 2328 (Fam), Mrs Justice Theis said it was a matter of “some regret” that previous warnings from senior judges about the shortage of suitable secure accommodation had “not heralded any significant change for these young people”.

The case concerned an application by Essex County Council for an order authorising the deprivation of a young person’s liberty.

The young person, referred to as ‘ST’ in the judgment, was 15 at the time of the hearing. She had experienced more than 20 placement moves since 2017, when she was placed in the care of the local authority.

In July 2026, Mrs Justice Theis made an order authorising the deprivation of ST’s liberty until 29 September 2026.

The judgment published this month (September 2026), explained her reasons for doing so. At its conclusion, Theis J directed that it be sent to the Director of Children’s Services at the local authority.

Introducing the case, Theis J referred to two previous decisions raising “serious concern” about the shortage of appropriate provision for young people such as ST.

She said: “In Re T [2021] UKSC 35 at [166], Lord Stephens stated:

‘First is the enduring well-known scandal of the disgraceful and utterly shaming lack of proper provision for children who require approved secure accommodation. These unfortunate children, who have been traumatised in so many ways, are frequently a major risk to themselves and to others. Those risks are the gravest kind, and include risks to life, risks to grievous injuries, or risks of very serious damage to property. This scandalous lack of provision leads to applications to the court under its inherent jurisdiction to authorise the deprivation of a child’s liberty in a children’s home which has not been registered, there being no other available or suitable accommodation’.

“In 2023 the former President of the Family Division, McFarlane P, stated in Re X (Secure Accommodation: Lack of Provision) [2023] EWHC 129 (Fam), having undertaken a detailed review of the previous cases:

‘It is, of course, not for the courts and the judges to determine matters of policy and the allocation of additional resources with respect to increasing the provision of secure accommodation places to meet the welfare needs of this most vulnerable group of children. All the courts can do is seek to draw attention to the problem in the hope that those who do have responsibility for these matters in Parliament and in Government will take the issue up and look to bring about a change in the current chronic shortfall in secure placements. Despite the regular flow of judgments of this nature over recent years, it is, at least from the perspective of the experienced senior judges who regularly deal with these cases, a matter of genuine surprise and real dismay that the issue has, seemingly, not been taken up in any meaningful way in Parliament, in Government or in wider public debate.’

Theis J observed that ST’s circumstances required an order under section 25 of the Children Act 1989 in secure accommodation where her needs “in the widest sense” could be met, including her education and therapeutic needs.

However, she said: “Such a placement is simply not available.”

She added: “The latest evidence the court had was that there are 54 live referrals for secure accommodation and only 5 potential placements available. Put another way, at least 49 vulnerable young people like ST do not have suitable placements available for them. I strongly suspect the real figure is very much higher as many children are placed in unregistered placements.”

Theis J noted that, while recognising the challenges presented by ST’s self-harming and repeated absconding, the evidence had demonstrated that her “most basic needs have simply not been met whilst she has been in the care of the local authority”.

She identified the following five matters supporting that conclusion:

1. "The high number of placement moves ST has had. Over 20 moves in 8 years.
2. ST’s most recent placement was rated as being ‘Inadequate’ by Ofsted. The court was not informed of this [in] December 2025 when it was asked to authorise the move to this placement.
3. There was no effective system in place in the local authority to assess whether that placement met ST’s needs. ST had been there for 4 weeks before anyone from the local authority visited her, or the placement.
4. The appalling lack of educational provision ST has had. She has lost (at least) two critical academic years. The system, such as it is, has continued to pay for online tuition which it transpired during these proceedings had only had a 7% take up. There had been no effective review of that by the Virtual School system, no active consideration of looking at other ways to engage ST in education with the Head of the Virtual School Service stating that he is limited on what he can offer.
5. As regards therapy ST has had none and remains in the catch 22 position of not being considered suitable for it whilst not in a stable placement and being placed in placements where no such provision or support is available.”

The application had required eight court hearings, with detailed directions at six of them to obtain “anything like a full picture” of what was happening for ST.

Theis J said the Children’s Guardian had played a “critical role” in looking beyond “continued generic assertions” made by the local authority and had been an “effective and reasoned advocate” for ST.

Concluding the case, Theis J said: “ST remains caught in a hopeless catch 22 situation where the care plan sets out that therapy will not be offered to ST until she begins to show behaviours absent the therapy that such therapy is designed to support, made worse as those responsible for her education indicate an assessment of therapeutic needs are necessary to formulate the right education provision for ST but the local authority have pressed on searching for school provision without a therapeutic assessment.

“It is hoped going forward the local authority, which includes the education authority and the mental health services, will now properly manage and meet ST’s particular needs, rather than those needs continuing to be lost to a fragmented silo way of working to the detriment of ST’s most basic welfare needs.”

Offering advice for future cases, Theis J called for any court dealing with a similar application to “actively consider the following matters:

1. Has the court been informed of the Ofsted rating of any placement and, if not, why not.
2. Has the allocated social worker been and visited the young person. If so, when and, if not, why not and what are the plans to do so.
3. What are the education arrangements for the young person. Are they working and if they are not, what is proposed going forward.
4. What are the arrangements for any mental health support and/or therapy. Are they working? If not, what is being considered to manage that?
5. Are there regular meetings of all those involved in the young person’s placement to ensure the arrangements are kept under active review. If not, why not?”

She found that making the order authorising ST’s deprivation of liberty would meet her best interests.

Lottie Winson