In the matter of M (A Child) V

Where a local authority maintains its care plan, the court’s powers under the Children Act 1989 are limited. It must scrutinise the plan, but cannot direct the authority to retain a particular placement. The court may refuse a care order if that is better for the child, or make an interim care order and invite the authority to reconsider. If the authority reviews the plan and maintains its position, the remaining challenge is by judicial review. An appellate court should not order a further rehearing merely to provide another opportunity for reconsideration where the authority’s position is clear.

The appeal concerned an interim placement for a young child in care proceedings. The mother and the child’s guardian wished the child to remain with her existing specialist foster carer pending the final hearing. The local authority proposed moving her to alternative foster carers and would not continue funding the existing placement.

The Justices made an interim care order because they considered that they could not maintain the status quo against the authority’s stated position. HHJ Rutherford upheld that decision, referring to the limited powers identified in A v Liverpool City Council. The child, through her guardian, sought permission to appeal, raising whether the lower courts should have required further reconsideration of the care plan.

1. Application refused. The Court of Appeal dealt with the matter on its merits and held that the permission threshold was not met.
2. The court accepted the statutory dilemma arising under the Children Act 1989. Once a care order is made, the court cannot dictate the child’s placement or control the local authority’s care plan in the manner available before the Act. The court must scrutinise the care plan, but its practical choices are limited to refusing a care order where that would better serve the child, or making an interim care order and inviting the local authority to reconsider.
3. That approach followed the authoritative account in A v Liverpool City Council [1982] AC 363. If the authority reconsidered the plan but remained clear that it would move the child, the court had no useful purpose in adjourning or ordering a further opportunity for reflection. The appropriate route for challenging the authority’s decision was judicial review.
4. The Justices had exercised their discretion properly in making the interim care order, and HHJ Rutherford was entitled, indeed bound, to uphold it. The Court of Appeal would not rehear the matter simply because the guardian advanced an eloquent welfare argument or because further pressure might be placed on the authority. Lord Justice Patten agreed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): refused the application for permission to appeal.
• Bristol County Court: HHJ Rutherford upheld the Justices’ interim care order, holding that the court had no power to intervene further while the local authority maintained its care plan.
• Justices: made an interim care order after concluding that the existing foster placement could not be maintained against the local authority’s stated position.