​The Court made final orders providing for the Patient's continued residence at Address 2, with arrangements for contact with her mother defined.

The Patient, NB, who is autistic, had resided at Address 1 until her very challenging behaviour there led to her being served notice to move out. She then moved to Address 2. Her mother VW had made applications for shared care such that NB could spend time living in the family home and Address 2. The applications were dismissed. The Local Authority and the Official Solicitor were agreed that the court should be invited to make final orders providing for NB's continued residence at Address 2 (she told the court she wanted to move back to Address 1), with arrangements for contact with VW defined, in particular to restrict VW's direct contact with NB to fortnightly on an agreed and predictable day of the week for a specified period so as to give NB the best chance of settling into her new home.
​
The court concluded that NB's stated wishes in respect of where she lives at present cannot be given decisive weight. Her Litigation Friend took the same view. It is in NB's best interests to continue living at Address 2. As to contact with VW, the court said that it is necessary and proportionate that direct contact between them should be reduced to fortnightly and in accordance with a planned timetable, as the Applicant Local Authority sought.

Read the full text of the judgment on Bailii

​This was a claim for a declaration under CPR Part 8 that it is not mandatory to bring before the Court the withdrawal of Clinically Assisted Nutrition and Hydration ("CANH") from a patient who has a prolonged disorder of consciousness in circumstances where the clinical team and the patient's family are agreed that it is not in the patient's best interests that he continues to receive that treatment, and that no civil or criminal liability will result if CANH is withdrawn. The declaration was made in relation to this case only.

Application by local authority to recover monies and costs through triggering of a bond taken out by E, P's parent, who was acting as Deputy at the time the bond was taken out. Application refused.

​​Appeal against a decision involving the deprivation of liberty of a 16 year old boy. The appeal was allowed on one ground.