CD (A Child By Her Litigation Friend, VD) v Isle of Anglesey County Council

A local authority’s care plan for a disabled child must promote her welfare through services appropriate to her needs, minimise the effects of disability, respect her wishes and feelings, and secure accommodation suitable to her particular needs. A plan may be irrational and unlawful where it gives inadequate weight to a child’s established relationship with a second family, relies on support which leaves an ill parent with unsustainable overall responsibility, or proposes residence substantially contrary to the child’s consistently expressed wishes. The authority must address practical deficiencies in an established placement rationally and consistently. It is unlawful abruptly to erode an established second home through deregistration where a feasible improvement to the carers’ accommodation remains a live possibility.

The claimant was a 15-year-old disabled child who was looked after by the defendant local authority and had long received respite care with Mr and Mrs R. She regarded their household as a second family. The authority’s care plan proposed four nights each week at her special school during term time and otherwise care principally at her mother’s home, supported by professional workers. It provided no further overnight stays with Mr and Mrs R and was accompanied by their deregistration as foster carers.

The claimant sought judicial review, contending that the plan failed to address her welfare, needs, wishes and established family relationships. The central issue was whether the proposed arrangements lawfully discharged the authority’s statutory duties.

1. The claim succeeded. The care plan dated 2 June 2004 was declared unlawful and set aside. The decision to deregister Mr and Mrs R as foster carers for the claimant was also set aside. Further applications, including one concerning accommodation for Mr and Mrs R, were adjourned generally.
2. The authority’s proposal that the claimant should stay at school for four nights each week had a rational objective, namely developing independence and self-help skills. Its particular implementation was nevertheless unlawful because it substantially conflicted with her clearly and consistently expressed wishes, would single her out from other pupils, and would reduce her established time with Mr and Mrs R. Her disability did not justify giving her wishes and feelings less weight. The authority’s recording of those wishes was itself misleading, contrary to the duty in section 20(6) of the Children Act 1989.
3. The proposed level of support at the mother’s home did not address the mother’s need for freedom from overall responsibility. Support workers could not relieve her of responsibility for ensuring that the claimant’s physical and emotional needs were met while the claimant remained in her home. The evidence showed that the mother could not physically or emotionally sustain the responsibilities imposed by the plan.
4. A rational care plan had to recognise and provide for the claimant’s substantial relationship with Mr and Mrs R. The authority’s repeated changes of position, its failure to give proper weight to that relationship, and its reliance on inadequately supported or withdrawn criticisms demonstrated an irrational approach. The physical unsuitability of the existing home required attention, but did not justify eliminating the placement without properly considering adaptation or relocation.
5. The authority thereby failed to comply with sections 17(1), 17(2), 20(6) and 23(8) and paragraph 6 of Schedule 2 to the Children Act 1989. Deregistration might have been rational while the existing accommodation remained unsuitable, but its timing was unlawful because it abruptly deprived the claimant of an established second home when relocation by the carers was, or was becoming, a live possibility.