High Court rules London Borough of Hackney's care package for disabled child inadequate and legally flawed

Citation: [2023] EWHC 3063 (Admin)
Judgment on

Introduction

In the judicial review case of TS, R (on the application of) v The London Borough of Hackney, several critical issues were brought before the High Court, centering on the adequacy of the care package for a significantly disabled child, TS, and the legal duties of the London Borough of Hackney (“the Defendant”). The case sheds light on the statutory duties of local authorities under the Children Act 1989 and the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, as well as the application of statutory guidance in assessing the needs of disabled children.

Key Facts

TS, a 13-year-old child with Williams Syndrome and other complex medical needs, through her mother, Mrs. LS, sought judicial review of the Defendant’s Child and Family Assessment and their Care Package Panel-Review decision. The claim was based on the grounds that the Defendant failed to conduct a lawful assessment (Ground A), breached its duty under section 20(1)(c) of the Children Act 1989 (Ground B), and made an irrational and unlawful service provision decision (Ground C). The core of the complaint was that the Defendant’s care arrangements were inadequate to meet TS’s requirements and left the family at a “crisis point.”

Section 17 of the Children Act 1989

The case reiterates that under section 17, the local authority has a general duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are in need. The requirement is for a local authority to carry out a section 17 assessment, in line with statutory guidance, to analyze the child’s needs and tailor adequate service provision accordingly.

Working Together to Safeguard Children Guidance

This statutory guidance underpins a section 17 assessment, emphasizing the need for individualized attention to each child’s unique circumstances and conditions, enabling local authorities to create a “realistic plan of action” for service delivery.

Section 20(1)(c) of the Children Act 1989

An absolute duty arises under section 20(1) when a child in need requires accommodation because the person caring for them is prevented, for whatever reason, from providing them with suitable accommodation or care. It addresses current crises, not speculative future needs.

Section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970

The Act imposes an obligation on local authorities to meet the needs of disabled children through specific arrangements, which are not discretionary but necessary provisions.

Outcomes

The High Court found for the Claimant on Grounds A and C, declaring the Defendant’s Assessment and Panel Review as legally flawed for several reasons:

  1. Lack of a detailed analysis of TS’s care needs, a breach of the statutory guidance.
  2. No indication that the Defendant had considered whether its duty under section 20(1) was engaged.
  3. Decision-making that was considered not to “add up,” resulting in an irrational care provision.

However, the court did not find for the Claimant on the substantive breach of section 20(1), as it was not clear-cut that TS’s needs could only be met by the engagement of this statutory duty at the time of the decision.

Conclusion

This case illustrates the imperative for local authorities to engage deeply and individually with the care needs of disabled children. A comprehensive and precise assessment, grounded in statutory guidance, is crucial for lawful decision-making. The principles of the Children Act 1989 and related statutory guidance stand as a touchstone for the legal duties of local authorities, ensuring that the welfare and best interests of the child remain at the core of service provision. The outcomes of this case serve as a guidepost for local authorities in conducting assessments that sufficiently address complex and individual child welfare situations.