Mental Health Act Guardianship and the Protection of Children

<strong><strong></strong></strong><p align="left">Re F (Mental Health Act: Guardianship) [2000] 1 FLR 192, CA<br />Court of Appeal (30th September 1999). Evans, Thorpe, and Mummery LJJ. Judgment of the Court given by Thorpe LJ.</p><p align="left">This case arose as a spin-off from what on the face of it was a relatively straightforward application for care orders, made by the Social Services Department of the London Borough of Hackney (‘LBH’), in respect of eight siblings. The case is of interest to mental health lawyers by reason of the attempt of LBH to use creatively elements of the Mental Health Act 1983 (‘the 1983 Act’) regime to plug apparent gaps in the powers available to local authorities and the courts in the<br />Children Act 1989. This entailed the court’s consideration of various provisions of the 1983 Act, as they relate to persons with learning difficulties. This case will also be of interest to family lawyers, as the boundary between family law and mental health law, such as it is, was also considered by the Court of Appeal. Moreover, it is worth remembering that the backdrop to all judicial activity in the field of mental health law at present is the on-going root-and-branch reform of this area of law. As will be discussed below, this case adds to a growing number that highlight<br />deficiencies in the operation of the current regime as it applies to adults with learning difficulties. Finally, although there is little direct discussion to be found in the law report of the judgment of the Court of Appeal, this case raises broader issues of human rights; a topic that none can afford to ignore in light of the Human Rights Act 1998.</p>