"Can Social Services Restrict The Use Of A Child’s Phone?" Family Law Solicitor, Melissa Knight discusses this and a recent case involving mobile phones in her latest blog...
There are quite often situations whereby children in the care of the Local Authority either in foster care, a residential placement or secure unit can be adversely impacted by use of their mobile phones and in particular, social media. A child in this situation may use their phone to attempt to seek out family that they have been removed from, communicate with risky associates or in some cases be vulnerable to exploitation or grooming. This can lead to situations whereby the allocated social worker requests that the child’s phone use is restricted, data limited, or the phone is removed from their possession entirely.
Refusal Of Restrictions On Mobile Phones
The case of Manchester City Council v P ( Refusal Of Restrictions On Mobile Phones) 2023 explored whether a Local Authority needs to apply to the High Court for a Deprivation of Liberty Order to restrict a child’s mobile phone use or whether this falls under an exercise of the Local Authority’s parental responsibility under section 33 Children Act 1989.
This case involved a vulnerable sixteen-year-old child who actually functioned at a lower age of a seven-year-old. The precipitating events which led to local authority involvement is that the child was at risk of child sexual exploitation, absconding and self-harming. The child’s social worker felt that it would be in the child’s best interests to remove the mobile phone from her possession from the hours of 10pm-8am and to allow staff at the child’s residential placement to be able to physically remove her mobile phone if this was impacting her behaviours. The child in this case was placing her safety at risk by sharing her whereabouts with friends, speaking to strangers online and her involvement with criminal gangs.
The Local Authority applied for a Deprivation of Liberty order under Section 100 Children Act 1989 and invited the court to use its powers under the inherent jurisdiction to sanction the arrangement for the child’s phone use to be restricted along with social media use, laptops and tablets. The children’s guardian agreed with the application. The child unsurprisingly was not in agreement.
Whilst Mr Justice MacDonald recognised that the child’s mobile phone was a “powerful analogue for freedom” especially given the child was physically confined to her placement, he did not agree that either removal of a phone or restricting use amounted to a “physical” restriction of the child’s liberty. It was held that because the child was subject to a care order, the Local Authority were able to restrict the child’s access to devices under Section 33 (3)(b) Children Act 1989 by virtue of the Local Authority exercising their parental responsibility. It is best practice that the Local Authority keep under careful review whether this continues to be a proportionate measure given that children and young people are likely to feel deprived of their belongings and liberty without free use.
It was made clear that use of physical restraint or force to physically remove the child’s phone or electronic device would require a sanction of the court under the inherent jurisdiction as this would be over and above the local authority exercising their parental responsibility even if it was to prevent the child suffering from significant harm. There must however be very clear and compelling evidence for the court to permit a social worker or staff at a child’s placement to physically remove a child’s device from their possession using force.
How Can Timms Help?
If you would like any information about the above there are more examples here or if you need advice from one of our Family team, why not contact us on freephone 0800 0116666.
