The High Court has jurisdiction, where necessary, to review a child’s transition from special care after a special care order expires or is discharged, Ms Justice Faherty has ruled. The court may also retain the child’s guardian ad litem to help ensure the child’s welfare is protected during that transition.
The ruling arose from proceedings concerning S., a child whose full special care order expired on 31 July 2018. The order had placed S. in a specified special care unit. A step-down placement was identified only shortly before the order expired, and there was uncertainty about the services that would be available there.
The second respondent, who had been appointed guardian ad litem, sought directions on S.’s onward placement and asked the court to continue the guardian’s involvement. The Child and Family Agency (CFA) argued that the High Court’s role should generally end when a special care order expires or is discharged, save in exceptional circumstances. S.’s mother supported the guardian’s position.
The judge considered whether Part IV A of the Child Care Act 1991 displaced the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to review a case after the special care order ended. She rejected the argument that provisions allowing other special care orders preserved a parallel inherent power to detain children outside the statutory regime. She found, however, that the legislation did not expressly or completely set out the High Court’s post-order review powers.
The court accepted that the District Court can hear applications under section 47 of the Act concerning a child in the CFA’s care, including voluntary care. But there was no District Court care order in S.’s case, and the judge identified an immediate gap in representation and oversight between the end of special care and the move to the step-down placement. She concluded that the High Court could review the transition, including to consider whether a section 47 application should be made.
The ruling is limited: it does not require the High Court to review every case after a special care order ends. The judge said a review may be unnecessary in some cases, and matters may be more appropriately dealt with in the District Court. Where needed, however, the High Court may retain the guardian ad litem so the child’s views and interests can be brought before the court.
The judgment determined the jurisdictional issue. The source does not set out a further order specifying the duration or terms of any post-order review in S.’s case.