The High Court has declined to vary a special care order concerning B, a minor, ruling that the order already takes effect immediately under the Child Care Act 1991.
In an ex tempore judgment delivered on 3 May 2024, Mr Justice Jordan said the order was in existence but, at the time of the hearing, was having “no effect”. He described B as being in a very vulnerable position and at extreme risk. The judge said this was the second special care order concerning B that had had no effect, and one of a number of such orders made in respect of the young person.
The application sought to add wording to the order. The judge said the proposed wording was unnecessary because section 23H(2) provides that a special care order has effect from the day it is made and commits the child to the care of the Child and Family Agency (CFA). He said the statutory scheme made the order’s immediate effect clear.
Justice Jordan criticised the CFA’s failure, in his view, to acknowledge that position. He said the application was understandable because the CFA had succeeded on a procedural defence in earlier plenary proceedings brought by B through his mother and next friend. The judge considered that defence correct in those proceedings, but said the applicant had reason to fear another procedural defence in relation to a possible enforcement application.
The judgment discussed a proposed motion for attachment and committal based on the CFA’s alleged failure to give effect to the order. The judge said the question of what warning should appear on such a motion was for the moving party. He did not decide whether the CFA was in contempt, nor did this judgment make an attachment or committal order.
The judge also held that a parent could bring an application concerning an existing order where they considered that intervention was needed. He rejected the suggestion that the application was impermissible under section 23NK of the 1991 Act and said participants or interested parties could apply in the child care list.
He declined to vary the order, finding the requested change “wholly unnecessary”. The judgment does not record an order directing the CFA to implement the special care order in this application.