Court of Appeal overturns care order for troubled teenager

18 Feb 2025Court Report

Court of Appeal overturns a care order for a teenager with complex needs, questioning the necessity and proportionality of such an order

Background of the Case

The Court of Appeal recently addressed the complex case of CD, a 17-year-old with significant behavioural and mental health challenges. CD had been living under a series of deprivation of liberty orders (DOLs) since July 2023, authorised by West Sussex County Council. The local authority sought a care order under the Children Act 1989, which was granted by HHJ Bedford in June 2024. However, this decision was contested by the local authority itself, supported by CD's mother, AB.

Legal Proceedings

The appeal focused on the proportionality of the care order, given that CD's care was already regulated under the DOLs orders. The local authority argued that the care order was unnecessary, as CD's care needs were being met through existing statutory duties. The children's guardian opposed the appeal, although some criticisms of the initial judgment were acknowledged.

Judicial Analysis

The Court of Appeal, led by Sir Andrew McFarlane, emphasised that the appeal was based on proportionality rather than a discrete legal issue. The court noted that combining a DOLs order with a care order is not uncommon, yet questioned its necessity in this case. The judgment distinguished CD's situation from typical 'care order at home' cases, highlighting the intensive support CD received at home.

Case Context

CD, adopted by AB in 2012, faced numerous challenges, including diagnoses of autism, ADHD, and PTSD. Her behaviour had led to hospital admissions and significant care interventions. Despite efforts to find a suitable residential placement, CD remained at home with professional carers due to the lack of alternatives.

Judge's Decision

HHJ Bedford justified the care order, citing the need for statutory services and potential risks if AB withdrew her cooperation. The judge expressed concerns about the local authority's reliance on issuing fresh care proceedings if AB's support waned. The children's guardian supported the care order, emphasising the need for shared parental responsibility.

Court of Appeal's Ruling

The Court of Appeal found the care order disproportionate, noting that the local authority had statutory duties to meet CD's needs without it. The court highlighted the ongoing role of DOLs proceedings in monitoring CD's care. Concerns about AB's potential non-compliance were deemed insufficient to justify the order, given her substantial support over time.

Impact on CD

The court also considered the potential negative impact on CD if informed of the care order, given her past experiences in care. The decision to withhold this information underscored the professionals' concerns about her reaction.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal concluded that the care order was not justified, allowing the appeal and setting aside the order. The judgment emphasised the importance of proportionality and the existing statutory framework in addressing CD's complex needs.