The High Court has ruled that the Child and Family Agency’s Special Care Referral Committee acted unreasonably when it twice decided that an anonymised child did not meet the statutory risk threshold for special care. The court found that the reasons given were unsupported by the material before the committee.
The judicial review concerned committee decisions dated 29 March and 16 April 2019. The child’s mother challenged both decisions. The first refused a social work referral for special care; the second maintained that position after the committee reviewed additional information, including reports from the child’s guardian ad litem and a senior social worker. The guardian supported the challenge.
The judgment describes a long history of care placements and professional involvement. The child had left special care in January 2019 and later left a step-down placement. At the time of the referral, he was living in a hostel described to the court as a registered childcare centre. Reports before the committee referred to alleged drug use, assaults, theft and other risk-taking behaviour. Those matters were allegations or reported concerns, not findings made in this judicial review.
The committee accepted there had been a deterioration in the child’s behaviour. It nevertheless concluded that the information did not show that his behaviour met the threshold in section 23F(2)(a) of the Child Care Act 1991: reasonable cause to believe the behaviour posed a real and substantial risk to his life, health, safety, development or welfare. In its second decision, the committee also said it saw no therapeutic benefit in readmission and considered that consequences for the behaviour were needed.
The mother argued that the committee had failed to apply the statutory test and had not properly considered the child’s welfare and constitutional rights. The Agency argued that special care is a last resort involving detention, which must have an educational or therapeutic rationale, and that the expert committee had material supporting its decisions.
Mr Justice MacGrath stressed that the case concerned the legality of the committee’s decision-making, not whether the court itself should order special care. The Agency holds the statutory role of deciding whether to initiate the process for a special care order, and the committee was entitled to appropriate deference. But the court found that the reports before it did not support the stated conclusion that the child’s behaviour failed the risk threshold. The committee’s reasoning on that point was therefore unreasonable and legally flawed.
The court said that this flaw meant the committee had not properly proceeded to consider the other statutory requirements, including care alternatives, therapeutic needs, consultation and a family welfare conference. It granted the relief sought by the mother, with the form of relief to be discussed with counsel. The judgment does not itself direct the Agency to apply for a special care order or place the child in special care.