CW v Hartlepool Borough Council & Anor [2026] EWCOP 40 (T3)
[2026] EWCOP 40 (T3)Case No COP20017138
IN THE COURT OF PROTECTION
Venue Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London, WC2A 2LLDate 14 August 2026
Before
MRS JUSTICE THEIS DBEVICE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF PROTECTION
Between
CW (By her litigation friend, the Official Solicitor)ApplicantHartlepool Borough CouncilRespondentsScottish Borders CouncilRespondentBen McCormack (instructed by EMG Solicitors) for ApplicantJonathan Carr (instructed by Hartlepool Borough Council Legal Services) for First RespondentJulia Cheetham KC (instructed by BHP Law) for Second RespondentHearing Hearing date: 11 August 2026Judgment date: 14 August 2026Approved Judgment............................This judgment was delivered in public but a transparency order dated 24 February 2026 is in force. The judge has given leave for this version of the judgment to be published on condition that (irrespective of what is contained in the judgment) in any published version of the judgment the anonymity of CW must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media and legal bloggers, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so may be a contempt of court.
[1]These proceedings concern CW, 33 years old, who lives in a care home, X Home, in the Hartlepool area. CW has a diagnosis of emotionally unstable personality order (“EUPD”), has cognitive deficits and epilepsy. She has lived at X Home since December 2022. Prior to that she lived in Scotland.[2]CW was placed in X Home by Scottish Borders Council (“SBS”) with the agreement of her Senior Mental Health Officer, PG, under the powers contained in a guardianship order made by the Jedburgh Sheriff Court on 17 August 2022 for a period of three years.[3]These proceedings were commenced by CW through her litigation friend (then her relevant person’s representative; since 17 July 2026 the Official Solicitor) on 6 June 2025 by an application under s21A Mental Capacity Act 2005 (“MCA 2005”). The application was to challenge the Standard Authorisation made by Hartlepool Borough Council (“HBC”) under Schedule A1 MCA 2005. The Respondents to that application are Hartlepool Borough Council (“HBC”) and Scottish Borders Council (“SBC”).[4]In those proceedings the issue of CW’s habitual residence was considered on 23 October 2025 by HHJ Boothroyd when she declared that CW’s habitual residence was in Scotland. In the written submissions for that hearing no party sought to suggest other than CW’s habitual residence was in Scotland, although it was accepted it was finely balanced and may need to be kept under review.[5]Having made that declaration SBC confirmed in their position statement for that hearing on 23 October 2025 that they intended to make an application for a guardianship order, as the previous order had expired on 17 August 2025 and had not been renewed.[6]In the light of that the proceedings were re-allocated to T3 and first came before me on 10 December 2025 and the continuation of CW’s deprivation of liberty was authorised pursuant to paragraph 7(1)(d) Sch 3 MCA 2005.[7]SBC made their application in the Sheriff Court on 12 January 2026. When they made that application their position was that CW’s habitual residence was in Scotland.[8]In the light of those ongoing proceedings in Scotland I made a number of orders on the papers. On 6 March 2026 the order made that day included the first reference to any question being raised regarding habitual residence in the Scottish proceedings. The order referred to a hearing when evidence would be heard on 22 April 2026. Following that hearing in Scotland the Sheriff Court issued a ruling on 7 May 2026 setting out the facts that had been found. Further submissions on the issue of habitual residence were directed and on 29 May 2026 the Sheriff Court gave a judgment that dismissed the application for a guardianship order for want of jurisdiction.[9]Following that decision, SBC issued a COP9 application on 15 June 2026 seeking a declaration in these proceedings that CW’s habitual residence is in England and Wales.[10]The court heard submissions on 11 August 2026 and handed down this judgment today.[11]All parties had filed skeleton arguments. SBC’s application was supported by CW, through her litigation friend the Official Solicitor. HBC was neutral. MW, CW’s mother, attended the hearing although she is not a party.[12]For the reasons set out below I have concluded that CW’s habitual residence is in England and Wales.
Wider issues
[13]In their written submissions Counsel raised wider issue of practice that arose in this case. Having heard submissions on those matters I directed the parties to further liaise and submit a joint list with any areas of dispute identified. I am extremely grateful to all counsel for doing this. I have set out the list below with some modest modifications which may assist in similar cases.
Pre placement
[14]Where placement of an adult from Scotland to England and Wales is contemplated the placing authority should give full consideration to Schedule 1 of the Care Act 2014 and accompanying Statutory Guidance 2025:
“Care and Support Statutory Guidance”
Chapter 21 (Cross Border Placements). In particular the placing authority in accordance with the Guidance should: a. Notify the second authority of its intention to make a cross border residential care placement. b. Provide a provisional date on which it intends for the individual concerned to commence their placement. c. Provide the second local authority with details of the proposed provider. d. Seek that local authority’s views on the suitability of the residential accommodation.
Post placement
[15]Where an adult is placed in England and Wales under a Scottish Welfare Guardianship order there should be a timely application for recognition and enforcement of that order under paragraph 19 Schedule 3 of the MCA 2005 to provide a clearly understood legal framework for decision making.[16]Where an adult from Scotland is placed in England and Wales under a Scottish Welfare Guardianship order and the adult is (or may be) deprived of their liberty the placing local authority should ensure that the second authority where the adult is placed is informed. Where any eligible person considers there is an unauthorised deprivation of liberty then paragraphs 67-73 Schedule A1 MCA 2005 provide a mechanism by which that can be drawn to the attention of the relevant local authority so that the process for determination of whether to grant a standard authorisation can be triggered.[17]Where recognition and enforcement of an order under Schedule 3 is sought all parties should be mindful of the key requirements of Article 5 as set out in Argyll and Bute Council v RF [2025] EWCOP 12at [56] and steps which may be taken to prevent a breach of Article 5 as set out in Midlothian Council v DM [2025] EWCOP 61should be considered. In all cases (including those where the adult’s circumstances fall outside Article 5) parties ought to also consider whether Article 6 and/or 8 ECHR are engaged and whether the key requirements have also been met.[18]All parties should keep the issue of habitual residence under review throughout the placement.[19]Where an adult is placed in England and Wales under a Scottish Guardianship order which is coming to an end timely consideration of any further application should be made. Such consideration should include the current circumstances of the adult and whether it is considered that there has been a change in habitual residence. In the event that it is considered by the placing authority that there has been a change in habitual residence and it is intended that the placement should continue an application should be made to the Court of Protection prior to the expiry of the Scottish Guardianship Order.[20]Where there are concurrent sets of proceedings in England and Wales and Scotland effective and timely communication through use of the Judicial Protocol Regulating Direct Judicial Communications Between Scotland, England & Wales, and Northern Ireland in Cases of Adults who Lack Capacity (‘the Protocol’) provides the framework for the disclosure of relevant documents between the two sets of proceedings. In particular, any determination in relation to habitual residence should be communicated, if possible, without delay.
Relevant background
[21]Prior to her placement in X Home in December 2022, CW lived in the SBC’s area, in particular between 2018 to 2022 in supported accommodation, Z Court, until SBC was advised that placement was no longer able to meet CW’s needs.[22]SBC applied for a guardianship order concerning CW. That was granted on 17 August 2022 for a period of three years. The order set out the following powers for the guardian (the Chief Social Worker with SBC):a. A. The Power to decide where the Adult shall reside on a temporary or permanent basis;b. B. The Power to convey the Adult to the Adult’s residence or other accommodation determined by the Guardian, including any care facility which will meet the Adult’s care needs;c. C. The Power to decide what care arrangements, treatment and multiagency support, (including but not limited to assistance with the management of her day to day activities) best meets the Adult’s needs to assist her with bathing, dressing, cooking, shopping and cleaning, and to meet other daily needs the Adult cannot manage independently;d. D. The Power to make decisions on the social, educational, therapeutic and cultural activities that the Adult may pursue and to transport the Adult to such activities or to instruct the Adult to attend, including the power to instruct the Adult to undertake exercise that is in the Adult’s best interests;e. E. The Power to consent or refuse consent to medical or dental procedures or treatment;f. F. The Power to make medical or dental appointments and to convey the Adult to and from such appointments;g. G. The Power to open, read and, as appropriate reply to any mail or other communication addressed to or received by the Adult which relates to her welfare, or to make arrangements for such mail to be dealt with, including the power to sign the Adult’s mail and to deal with it appropriately where it relates solely or mainly to the Adult’s welfare needs;h. H. The Power to exercise any rights of access which the Adult has in relation to personal data, including medical records, to the extent that it is necessary to safeguard her welfare needs;i. I. The Power to decide with whom the Adult should consort, whether this be face to face contact or verbal communication via landline, mobile telecommunications and internet communications, including the power to supervise and set boundaries around the Adult’s use of such communications and social media contact, together with the power to support and advise the Adult to enable her to make more appropriate decisions about whom she wishes to consort with.[23]In October 2022 SBC made a general enquiry to HBC regarding a potential placement at X Home. HBC responded referring to previous safeguarding concerns and highlighting the most recent CQC report.[24]CW was placed at X Home on 22 December 2022.[25]On 3 February 2023 HBC carried out safeguarding investigation in relation to an incident where CW sustained burns at X Home. On the same day there was a meeting between H Home and SBC and X Home agreed to make a referral to HBC regarding deprivation of liberty authorisation.[26]On 23. February 2023 PG was informed that the X Home had submitted a Form 1 but that it had been rejected by HBC as CW had not been placed by HBC.[27]On 9 March 2023 SBC was informed that a HBC social worker had been appointed to undertake the deprivation of liberty assessment.[28]30 March 2023 HBC gave a Standard Authorisation in relation to CW under Schedule A1 MCA 2025 and then gave further Standard Authorisations on 1 July 2024, 30 December 2024, 2 July 2025, 9 January 2026 and 3 July 2026.[29]The evidence from SBC confirms that the move of CW to X Home was intended to be temporary, whilst SBC looked at other placements that could meet CW’s particular medical and psychological needs. The details regarding those searches are set out in the statements filed by PG on 5 September 2025 and 4 February 2026 and SM on 4 April 2026, 22 May 2026 and 31 July 2026.[30]The application issued on behalf of CW on 6 June 2025 was on the basis that CW objected to the continued deprivation of her liberty and was reported to have said on 2 May 2025 that she wanted to return back to live in the SBC area. Her objection to her continued placement at X Home was confirmed again at a visit on 3 July 2025. In late July 2025 CW said she want to leave X Home and live in her own property in the Hartlepool area.[31]In early August 2025 CW was reported to have said to her SBC social worker when asked if she would like to return to her previous placement in Scotland she had responded that she didn’t as it was too close to MW.[32]On 17 August 2025 the guardianship order made in 2022 expired.[33]In September 2025 CW was reported as saying she wanted to live somewhere else in Hartlepool as she liked it and did not want to go North or live with her mother.[34]In October 2025 CW repeated that she wanted her own accommodation in Hartlepool and said she did not want to go back to the SBC area as she wanted to live in a city. CW described X Home as a mental prison and her room as a cell.[35]On 23 October 2025 HHJ Boothroyd concluded CW’s habitual residence was in Scotland.[36]On 8 December 2025 MW’s application to be a party was refused and the application was re-allocated to T3 level. CW stated to Dr P that she didn’t really like X Home but that she was happy enough and in Dr P’s view was not looking to leave. The next day CW told her social worker that she was happy at X Home, did not wish to return to Scotland and wished to have a flat in the Hartlepool area.[37]On 10 December 2025 CW confirmed to her solicitor and counsel that she would like to live in Hartlepool and confirmed she would rather be there than in the SBC area.[38]On 10 December 2025 this court made directions for updating evidence and listed the matter for further review on 16 February 2026.[39]On 12 January 2026 SBC made an application to the Sheriff Court for a guardianship order.[40]In February 2026 CW’s relevant person’s representative discussed the Scottish guardianship application with her. CW said that she didn’t want to go back there to live.[41]On 22 April 2026 the Sheriff Court considered written and oral evidence and on 7 May 2026 made factual findings. Within the 7 May 2026 judgment it is recorded that CW had consistently stated that she does not wish to return to Scotland. It is further stated that SBC had no intention of removing CW from X Home if they had the power to do so. Within the notes to that judgment, it is recorded that FG, the safeguarder, lodged an affidavit setting out her findings from her interview with CW and although she did not give evidence she confirms that CW has no wish to return to Scotland.[42]Following further written submissions on 29 May 2026 the Sheriff Court dismissed the application for a guardianship order for want of jurisdiction. Paragraph 9 of the judgment states as follows: “For the purposes of this decision the facts are relatively straight forward. I have already made findings in fact in relation to the adult and her care. The adult has lived at [X Home] since December 2022. The applicant has no intention of attempting to remove her from [X Home]. The adult does not wish to return to Scotland which is the only other possible place of habitual residence. The adult lacks capacity to make an informed choice about where she lives. There is no suitable alternative accommodation for the adult in Scotland. There is no reasonable prospect of the adult leaving [X Court] in the foreseeable future”.[43]In her meeting with Dr R in June 2026 CW confirmed that she did not want to return to live in Scotland, wanted to remain in Hartlepool and referred to the X Home as like a prison. During the best interest assessment in June 2026 CW is reported to say she may return live in the borders and that the X Home is like a prison and the staff are horrendous.[44]In August 2026 when seen by her solicitor CW said she did not want to remain in X Home, wanted to live in the local area and did not want to return to the SBC area.
Evidence
[45]In support of their application dated 15 June 2026 SBC have filed a statement from Ms D, a SBC solicitor, dated 6 August 2026 which, in summary, states:(1) That ‘unfortunately the 2022 Guardianship order was never ratified in the English courts.(2) By June 2025 SBC were considering applying for a renewal of the guardianship order but had difficulties in securing from the NHS the ‘required Medical report by a section 22 Doctor, which needed to be lodged with the Renewal Application’ as a result the guardianship order expired on 17 August 2025.(3) SBC obtained Counsel’s opinion regarding habitual residence in July 2025. SBC’s position was that the issue was finely balanced although it accepted that the order of HHJ Boothroyd confirms that the declaration regarding CW’s habitual residence being in Scotland on 23 October 2025 was an agreed position.(4) In the statement of facts in support of the application for a guardianship order in January 2026 SBC noted that CW’s habitual residence is ‘in flux’ and that the X Home ‘can only be characterised as a temporary residence’ Ms D said that position, as confirmed by PG, CW’s Mental Health Officer, who stated that a referral was made to HBC as soon as CW transferred to the area continuing ‘Given the placement was to be temporary, the Scottish guardianship was not relinquished’. Ms D accepts as further evidence was gathered ‘this fact was no longer to be the case’.(5) In March 2026 SBC considered it was becoming increasingly difficult to argue CW’s habitual residence was in Scotland, in particular as CW had not expressed a wish to return to Scotland since August 2025 and her contact with those still there was decreasing, so that she had limited contact with her mother and no contact with her brother. The professionals were of the view that the X Home was the most appropriate setting for CW and SBC’s position was that they were not actively seeking to move CW, although SBC had considered alternative placements suggested by CW’s English legal representatives.(6) PG’s affidavit in the guardianship proceedings stated that whilst X Home was a short term solution with a view to CW returning to a tenancy such as her previous one in SBC, he did not have any plans to move CW from X Home.(7) Following the findings made by the Sheriff Court on 7 May 2026 SBC reviewed the outcome of the evidential hearing and in SBC’s written submissions to the Sheriff Court referred the court to SBC’s allocated social worker for CW, SM, referring to X Home as being permanent.(8) In the light of the conclusion reached by the Sheriff Court on 29 May 2026 Ms D confirmed ‘SBC therefore consider that habitual residence has transferred to England.’
Legal framework
[46]The legal framework is agreed between the parties. It is recognised that it is a fact specific issue.[47]The relevant principles are conveniently summarised by Poole J in Aberdeenshire Council v SF [2023] EWCOP 28 at [14]-[15] as follows:14. In An English Local Authority v SW & Anor [2014] EWCOP 4, Moylan J held that the meaning to be given to "habitual residence" in the context of the MCA 2005, founded on the 2000 Convention, is the same as that given in other family law instruments, including the 1996 Convention on the Protection of Children. He held at [65] that "whilst, inevitably, different factors will be relevant and will bear differential weight, the overarching approach should be consistent across all international family law instruments" whether relating to adults or children. In The Health Service Executive of Ireland v IM & Anor [2020] EWCOP 51, Knowles J extracted the following principles from the authorities, which I adopt, "a) Habitual residence is a question of fact and not a legal concept such as domicile (A v A (Children: Habitual Residence) [2014] AC 1 at [54]); b) The test adopted by the ECJ is the "place which reflects some degree of integration by the child in a social and family environment". The child's physical presence should not be temporary or intermittent (Proceedings brought by A (Case C-523/07) [2010] Fam 42 at [38]); c) Consideration needs to be given to conditions and reasons for the child's stay in the state in question (Mercredi v Chaffe (Case C-497/10PPU) [2012] Fam 22 at [48]); d) The essentially factual and individual nature of the enquiry should not be glossed with legal concepts which would produce a different result from that which the factual enquiry would produce (see A v A above at [54]); e) Both objective and subjective factors need to be considered. Rather than consider a person's wishes or intentions, it is better to think in terms of the reasons why a person is in a particular place and his or her perception of the situation while there - their state of mind (Re LC (Children) [2014] AC 1038 at [60]); See similarly in An English Local Authority v SW & Anor [2014] EWCOP 4 at [27], per Moylan J (as he then was). f) It is the stability of the residence that is important, not whether it is of a permanent character (Re R (Children) [2016] AC 76 at [16]); and g) Habitual residence is to be assessed by reference to all the circumstances as they exist at the time of assessment (FT v MM [2019] EWHC 935 (Fam) at [13])."15. I would add that I have taken into account the authoritative review of habitual residence as it applies to children given by Moylan LJ in the M (Children) (Habitual Residence: 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention) [2020] EWCA Civ 1105 in which he emphasised the issue of stability when determining habitual residence. In Re LC (Children) [2014] AC 1038 Baroness Hale gave examples of the objective and subjective factors which might be relevant. Subjective factors might include the reason for the move and the state of mind of the individual involved as to their new situation. She emphasised the need for a child centred approach and it seems to me that in the Court of Protection there must be an approach centred on the protected party.[48]Although in that case Poole J concluded SF’s habitual residence was in Scotland by the time of his third judgment in the proceedings (Re SF (No 3) [2024 EWCOP 74) he concluded that the degree of integration that SF had achieved in England was such as to mean her habitual residence had changed as due to a change in her medication and the evidence that as a result she had started to go out in her community with staff regularly and had intimated that she was keen to stay in England that change in the factual position that changed the determination regarding habitual residence. 49. The court is entitled to review the question of habitual residence even where there has been an earlier judicial determination of the issue (see Morgan J in Neath and Port Talbot County Borough Council v CK, DK and EK [2025] EWCOP 47 at [19]).
Submissions
[50]On behalf of SBC Ms Cheetham KC submits that the key factual matters the court should take into account can be summarised as follows:(1) CW has lived in England since December 2022 which represents a period of stability.(2) CW receives healthcare in England including consultant oversight for her epilepsy and GP services.(3) PG, CW’s Senior Mental Health Officer, considers that CW has positive contact with the staff at X Home and has benefitted from the placement.(4) It is acknowledged CW’s community contact in Hartlepool is limited but is available.(5) CW’s connection with Scotland is limited. MW lives there but is not in a position to care for her and has only limited contact with CW. CW has no contact with her brother.(6) CW has complex needs in relation to her epilepsy, EUPD and difficulties with engagements which limits the type of placement that can meet those needs as X Home does.(7) It is accepted that following her placement at X Home SBC continued to look for alternative placements although the recent position of SBC is that X Home meets CW’s needs and there is no alternative option.(8) CW’s wishes over a period of time have consistently been that she does not wish to return to Scotland although Miss Cheetham cautions against placing too much weight on them.[51]Miss Cheetham confirms that irrespective of this court’s decision regarding habitual residence CW’s ordinary residence will remain in Scotland in accordance with section 39 Schedule 1 paragraph 3(1) Care Act 2014 with the result that SBC will continue to fund CW’s placement and retain full case management responsibility, remain the local authority responsible for meeting CW’s care and support needs and for funding those services.[52]Mr Carr on behalf of HBC submits that it is open to the court to re-consider habitual residence where the relevant factual landscape has changed or new facts have emerged. Mr Carr accepts the position remains finely balanced.[53]He submits the court should consider whether there has been a change in the stability of CW’s living arrangements, whether her wishes and feelings as to where she wishes to live have changed and whether there has been sufficient integration.[54]On behalf of the Official Solicitor, Mr McCormack recognises that the issue of habitual residence is highly fact specific. He draws the courts attention to Re DB [2026] EWCOP 30 where Baker J (as he then was) was dealing with the cases of two men who had been placed for 6 and 7 years respectively in hospital accommodation in England by their Scottish local authorities. They remained deprived of their liberty throughout in the very real sense of not being able to leave the hospital regularly or at all. As a consequence they had developed no significant integration into life in England. Baker J concluded at [33]-[36] that they had both acquired habitual residence in England as a result of the duration of their placement, their placements were able to continue for as long as was required until suitable alternatives were found in Scotland and they had a steady routine of care and treatment in their hospital. He submits the changed position Poole J found in Re SF (no 3) [2024] EWCOP 74 provides another example.[55]Mr McCormack acknowledges the position was finely balanced in October 2025. He submits the change has been CW’s more settled position that she does not wish to return to live in Scotland. He recognises that at a recent best interest meeting CW said she may want to return to live in Scotland but the more consistent picture is of her wish to remain in the Hartlepool area. He submits that the more prolonged period of time during which she has maintained this view provides the evidential foundation for the determination in October 2025 to be revisited.
Discussion and decision
[56]In October 2025 the evidential landscape that underpinned the finely balanced consensus regarding habitual residence being in Scotland was founded on the fact that CW had been placed at X Home in December 2022 by SBC using the powers under the guardianship order, the intention then was that the placement was temporary and CW’s wishes were to return back to live in her local area in Scotland and had no family or friends in the Hartlepool area and rarely went anywhere in the local area.[57]The current factual position is that CW remains in the X Home, where she has now been for over 3 ½ years. There is no limit of time as to how long she can remain there. It is not now considered by SBC to be a temporary placement and there is limited, if any, active steps being taken by SBC to proactively look at alternative placements. CW’s wishes have developed over time and the more consistent picture now is of her wish to remain in the Hartlepool area but not in the X Home. Although there is an isolated piece of evidence about CW making contact with old school friends that is not supported by any other evidence. The picture remains that other than infrequent visits from her mother she retains no other family or friend connections with Scotland. There has been limited change in the position regarding integration in the local area. Suitable trips are offered but CW declines taking them up save for an isolated trip to the hairdresser.[58]Habitual residence is a question of fact and it is necessary for the court to consider the factual landscape in reaching its conclusion regarding habitual residence. That factual landscape can consider matters such as the length of time a person has been in the jurisdiction, the circumstances of that placement, their connections with the jurisdiction, their degree of integration and their wishes and feelings. It is important that I carefully consider and caution against any conclusion that may put too much weight on the period of time and any suggestion that CW is settled in circumstances where she is subject to compulsory confinement.[59]Having considered the updated evidence, and recognising the position remains finely balanced, I have reached the conclusion that CW’s habitual residence is now in this jurisdiction. This is for the reasons set out below, none of which are determinative but taken together support the conclusion reached:(1) CW has now been in this jurisdiction for over 3 ½ years. Whilst that fact alone can’t be determinative it is a longer period that in October 2025 when this court last considered the issue. In addition, the nature of the placement has changed in that it is no longer regarded as temporary in the sense that placements in Scotland are not actively being looked for. This appears to be for a number of reasons including the lack of specialist placements that could meet CW’s medical and psychological needs and that it is considered X Home is able to meet CW’s particular needs.(2) At the time this matter was last considered in October 2025 SBC were actively seeking to make an application for a guardianship order in Scotland recognising then that CW’s habitual residence was in Scotland. For the reasons set out in Ms D’s statement, that position changed as the factual landscape evolved so that by May 2026 they no longer supported CW’s habitual residence being in Scotland. That position was accepted by the Sheriff’s Court on 29 May 2026 when it dismissed the application for a guardianship order for want of jurisdiction.(3) The more consistent picture of CW’s wishes now are that she does not wish to return to live in Scotland. She has said that to a number of different people in different contexts, most recently to her solicitor. The other picture that emerges from her wishes is her continued unhappiness in her current placement, which she describes as being like a prison. However, if she did move her consistent wish is it would be to somewhere else in the Hartlepool area. Whilst her views about X Home have not changed, there is now evidence of stability in her wishes to remain living in England.(4) There is limited integration by CW in the local community, as she has continued to refuse all offers of arrangements to go out in the community. I have limited information as to what that may be caused by and what, if any, steps have been taken to be more creative in engaging CW in such activities. It also has to be recognised that she is subject to a deprivation of liberty regime which by definition limits her ability to integrate in the local community.(5) CW’s connections with Scotland are limited to her mother, who visits her about twice a year, and her brother, who she has no contact with. CW has no social contacts or connections in England.