The Court of Appeal has refused an appeal challenging a Child and Family Agency committee’s decision that a 16-year-old boy did not meet the criteria for special care. It affirmed the High Court’s refusal to quash the decision made on 10 March 2025.
The proceedings were brought on the boy’s behalf by his father, acting as his next friend. The challenge concerned the Special Care Referrals Committee’s assessment under Part IVA of the Child Care Act 1991. The committee accepted that the boy’s behaviour posed a real and substantial risk of harm, but was not satisfied that care other than special care would fail to address his behaviour, risks and care requirements.
The appeal argued that the committee had not adequately explained what other care options remained available and that its conclusion was irrational given the social work team’s assessment that no alternative placement could safely meet the boy’s needs. That team had described serious concerns, including alleged criminal activity, exposure to dangerous influences and the absence of an available residential placement. Those were assessments in the referral materials, not findings made by the Court of Appeal.
The Court of Appeal held that the reasons were adequate when the committee’s letter was read alongside the earlier referral and the committee’s November 2024 decision. It said the affected person was entitled to understand the decision in general terms, but did not need the details of every alternative option to understand why the committee had decided as it did. The court also concluded that the letter, read in context, conveyed that the committee did not consider special care to have a therapeutic rationale in this case.
On rationality, the court said the committee had to make its own expert assessment and could disagree with the social work team. It considered the team’s concerns about a possible residential placement, including the risk of absconding and uncertain drug debts, and found it was open to the committee to regard them as insufficient to show that less restrictive care would not adequately address the boy’s needs. The possibility of a residential placement had not been abandoned, although no placement had been offered.
The Agency also argued that the appeal had become moot because time had passed. The court declined to dismiss it on that basis, finding the argument had not been raised in the High Court and relied only on the passage of time. It did not order special care, direct a placement or require a fresh committee decision. The appeal was refused and the High Court decision affirmed.