The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal against a High Court decision extending a special care order for a 15-year-old boy, identified in the judgment as F. The appeal concerned the extension made on 11 January 2022 under Part IVA of the Child Care Act 1991.
The Child and Family Agency (CFA) had sought the extension. The boy’s mother opposed it, while his guardian ad litem supported a shorter extension, despite serious concerns about the lack of a suitable placement for him to move to after special care. The High Court extended the order. The appeal judgment, delivered by President Birmingham on 9 May 2022, concludes that all statutory preconditions were met and dismisses the appeal.
The judgment recounts a history of substantial concerns before the boy entered special care in October 2021, including repeated placement breakdowns, drug-related concerns, violence, frequent absences from care and disengagement from education and support services. The court also recorded significant progress during the special care placement, including engagement with therapy, school and medical appointments. The judgment describes the placement as beneficial, while noting the guardian’s view that uncertainty about what would happen next was harming the boy’s wellbeing.
The central issue on appeal was whether the legal criteria for extending special care were satisfied when no suitable stepdown placement was available. The mother argued that the statute required the court to find that the risk of harm continued to exist and that the statutory tests for adequacy, alternative care and necessity could not be reduced to the options the CFA happened to have available. The CFA submitted that discharging the boy into the community without a suitable placement would expose him to risk.
The Court of Appeal found that the evidence supported the conclusion that the risk of harm continued. It also held that the CFA had not secured a suitable alternative by 11 January 2022, despite efforts dating from October 2021, and that the statutory tests were met. The court said the available alternatives would have exposed the boy to grave risk and that continued detention in special care was necessary to protect his welfare.
The judgment acknowledged longstanding difficulties in finding stepdown placements. It did not make a separate order directing that a placement be provided. The appeal was dismissed because the court was satisfied that the statutory conditions had been met and that the High Court orders were in the boy’s best interests.