Judge rules council and CCG not required to fund visits of mother

Central Bedfordshire Council and North Norfolk Clinical Commissioning Group need not meet the travelling expenses of a woman who makes a lengthy weekly trip to see her son in a mental hospital.

Sitting as a Deputy High Court judge, Dinah Rose QC ruled in CXF, R (on the application of) v Central Bedfordshire Council & Anor [2017] EWHC 2311 (Admin) that it was not clear that the mother’s visits were essential to her son’s treatment and therefore the two bodies did not have a duty under s.117 of the Mental Health Act 1983 to cover the costs of the mother of ‘CFX’ making the visits.

CFX had argued that the duty arose as these visits constituted ‘after-care services’ within the meaning of that provision.

The court heard that 18-year-old CFX has complex needs arising from his autistic spectrum disorder and other conditions.

He is detained under s.3 of the Mental Health Act 1983 at Cawston Park Hospital, Norfolk, some 120 miles from the family home in Bedfordshire.

The costs of his mother’s weekly 240 miles round trip were met while CFX was a minor under s.17 of the Children Act 1989 but this ceased after his 18th birthday.

His mother argued that the cost caused her hardship as she was dependent on social security benefits.

During her visits CFX was accompanied by her and two hospital staff on bus trips in the locality, visits the staff made with him on other days.

The judge said the case concerned whether the duty to provide after-care services under s.117 was triggered when CFX was granted leave of absence from the hospital and whether he had then ‘ceased to be detained’ and ‘left hospital’, the two tests involved.

Ms Rose said the s.117 duty could not be triggered whenever anyone detained was simply permitted to leave the hospital perimeter.

She said: “On the facts of this case, I consider that it is clear that the claimant remained at all times detained in the hospital, and that he had not ‘left hospital’, even when he was enjoying leave of absence under s.17.”

He was, the judge noted, at all times deprived of his liberty, and under the care and control of the hospital and was thus detained even when permitted leave of absence.

She ruled that accordingly no duty was triggered.

Mark Smulian