X (A Child) (No 5)

A child’s detention under the Mental Health Act 1983 does not prevent the court making or continuing a care order. The court may approve the local authority’s care plan, but cannot determine whether the child remains detained at a particular placement where that decision belongs to responsible clinicians or the First-tier Tribunal. A care order does not transfer those statutory responsibilities to the court or local authority. A looked-after child remains entitled to the relevant benefits, including leaving-care support after reaching adulthood.

This was the fifth judgment concerning X, a child who had been subject to a Youth Court detention order and was subsequently transferred under section 47 of the Mental Health Act 1983 from one secure unit to another. The court had previously made a care order and directed the local authority to file a final care plan.

The transfer took place as planned. The local authority’s final care plan was endorsed by the Children’s Guardian and approved by the court. The judgment addressed the conclusion of the proceedings, the limits of the court’s role while X remained detained, and the local authority’s continuing responsibilities.

1. The proceedings were at an end for the time being. The care plan dated 9 August 2017 was filed, endorsed by the Children’s Guardian and approved by the court.

2. Detention under the Mental Health Act 1983 was no bar to the making of a care order. The same practical limitation applied as in Islington London Borough Council v TM: neither the court nor the local authority was the sole or primary decision-maker concerning the child’s placement while detention continued.

3. The decision whether X should remain at ZZ belonged to the responsible clinicians or the First-tier Tribunal. The court could approve the local authority’s care plan, but its order and approval could not fetter the statutory decision-maker.

4. X remained entitled, as the subject of a care order, to the benefits available to a looked-after child and, under the leaving-care legislation, to relevant support after reaching 18. The local authority’s leaving-care planning therefore needed to begin immediately.

5. The local authority’s inherent-jurisdiction application was adjourned with liberty to restore. Unless restored before X’s 18th birthday, it would stand dismissed at 4pm on the day before her birthday. Further applications concerning X were reserved to the President of the Family Division if practicable.

First-instance judgment. The judgment records earlier judgments in the same proceedings, including [2017] EWHC 2084 (Fam), but no appeal was determined in this judgment.