A County Council v A & Ors

Where a child urgently requires secure accommodation but no suitable placement is available, the local authority remains responsible for using its best endeavours to secure appropriate accommodation. A court may make interim arrangements that represent the least worst option, even where the placement is unsuitable and the relevant institution is under no statutory obligation to retain the child. The court must treat the child’s welfare as paramount, while recognising that it may lack power to compel a hospital to continue accommodating a child who does not satisfy the statutory criteria for detention. Resource allocation and responsibility for funding may arise, but matters outside the judicial remit should not be determined without a proper issue requiring decision.

The local authority applied for a deprivation of liberty order concerning a sixteen-year-old child subject to a care order. The child was in a hospital mental health ward, but an assessment concluded that she did not qualify for treatment under Tier 4 of CAMHS or detention under section 3 of the Mental Health Act. No suitable secure accommodation placement was available. The court considered the local authority’s statutory responsibilities, the hospital’s position, the child’s welfare, and the chronic shortage of secure placements in England and Wales.

1. The court made interim arrangements permitting the child to remain in the hospital placement for a further week, subject to existing conditions. Although the placement was inappropriate, it was safer than discharge into the community and represented the least worst available option.

2. The local authority remained responsible for accommodating the child under the care order. It had technically breached its statutory duty to provide secure accommodation, but the court accepted that it had done all that could reasonably be expected in the circumstances.

3. The court directed the local authority to continue, urgently and using its best endeavours, to find an appropriate placement.

4. The child did not qualify for detention or residence in the mental health unit under Tier 4 of CAMHS or section 3 of the Mental Health Act. The hospital was under no obligation to retain her. The court was persuaded that it would probably lack power to compel the hospital to continue accommodating her, particularly given the competing need for the hospital bed and the proper allocation of resources. That issue was not finally decided because the hospital agreed to the further stay.

5. The court described the shortage of secure accommodation as a national scandal causing potential harm to children and substantial avoidable public expenditure. Responsibility for funding placements and the causes of the shortage were outside the ambit of the judgment.

Not stated in the judgment.