The High Court has refused a minor’s application to quash a Child and Family Agency committee decision that he did not require special care.
In a judgment delivered on 29 May 2025, Ms Justice Miriam O’Regan found that the committee’s view that other care options had not been fully exhausted was reasonable and rational. The case was a judicial review of the committee’s decision of 10 March 2025. The court did not make the orders sought.
The application followed the committee’s consideration of a referral made by the social work team on 20 February 2025. The referral described the child as facing significant risks, including exposure to criminal influences, and said that he had not engaged with services. It raised concerns that he might abscond from mainstream residential or foster care and referred to possible drug debts. These were matters set out in the referral, not findings made by the court.
The team recommended special care, saying other options had been exhausted. However, the judge noted that some alternatives had been discounted because of concerns without first being implemented. Those concerns included whether the child would pass a risk assessment, whether he might abscond, and possible risks to carers, other residents and staff.
The applicant argued that the committee had not identified other care options in its decision and that there was no material before it to support its conclusion. The judge focused on whether the decision-making process was lawful, particularly the reasons given and whether the conclusion was irrational.
The judgment explained that special care is a last resort and that the statutory process requires consideration of whether other care can adequately address the child’s behaviour, risks and care requirements. The judge held that the referral contained material from which the committee, as an expert body, could conclude that other options had not been fully explored and might address those needs. The committee’s decision did not determine that special care could never be required; it found that the criteria for that intervention had not been met on the referral before it.
The respondent agency was successful. The judge stated a provisional view that it should receive its costs, to be adjudicated if the parties could not agree. Because the parties had not yet made submissions on costs, they were allowed 14 days to file written submissions of up to 1,000 words if they disagreed with the proposed order. In the absence of submissions, the proposed costs order would be made.