X (A Child : No 2)

A final care order may be made even where the child is detained following a criminal conviction. The detention does not prevent the order, although the practical exercise of parental responsibility and welfare functions may remain largely suspended during detention. Where an immediately workable care plan cannot yet be formulated, the court may approve a carefully defined plan of action directed towards producing one, provided that the child’s welfare and the need for lawful authority for any deprivation of liberty are addressed. A care plan must be realistic, safe and sufficiently developed to permit proper judicial scrutiny.

These were care proceedings concerning a teenager approaching her seventeenth birthday. The local authority’s threshold case was unchallenged. X was detained in a secure unit under a Detention and Training Order after continuing self-harm, suicidal behaviour and serious risks to herself and others.

The final hearing had previously been adjourned because the proposed care plan was too inchoate. By June 2017, no safe community placement had been identified, while professional evidence indicated that X might require clinical or secure provision. The issue was whether the court could make the necessary final care order despite the absence of a completed care plan, and what interim arrangements could properly be approved.

1. Final order. The court made a final care order without opposition. The need for the order was overwhelming because it would give the local authority parental responsibility and secure X’s entitlement to the benefits associated with being a looked-after child.
2. Effect of criminal detention. X’s detention following conviction was no bar to making a care order. In practical terms, however, the court’s functions concerning placement and welfare remained largely in suspense until her release. The judge relied on Islington London Borough Council v TM [2004] EWHC 2050 (Fam), as quoted in R (Anton) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Re Anton [2004] EWHC 2730/2731 (Admin/Fam), [2005] 2 FLR 818, and Re a Ward of Court [2017] EWHC 1022 (Fam).
3. Inchoate care plan. Although there was no realistic completed care plan for immediate approval, the court could approve a plan of action intended to lead to a properly worked-up plan. That plan included urgent multi-agency and mental-health assessments, consultation with the treating psychiatrist, consideration of clinical placements and funding, a contact risk assessment, preparation of an updated care plan, and a further hearing before X’s release.
4. Safety and lawful authority. The evidence demonstrated that any suitable placement was likely to involve restrictions amounting to a deprivation of liberty. The parties agreed, and the judge accepted, that judicial authorisation would be required and that, in the circumstances, the Family Division was the appropriate forum through the extant inherent-jurisdiction proceedings.
5. Welfare assessment. The local authority was required to pursue urgently an effective, realistic and safe placement. The court concurred with the guardian’s view that unsupervised contact was not presently supported and that contact required urgent risk assessment and planning.