Spink & Anor, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Wandsworth

A local authority’s care assessment for disabled children must address their assessed needs in the context of family circumstances, including parenting capacity and the family environment. The court will not substitute its own view for an experienced social worker’s professional judgment where the assessment has considered the relevant circumstances and its rationality has not been shown to be arguably defective. Financial considerations may affect the eventual care package, but they are not relevant to the initial assessment of need. Where a local authority has arguably failed to consider an available statutory scheme for aids and adaptations, permission for judicial review may be granted.

The claimants were two severely disabled children living with their parents in Wandsworth. They sought permission to apply for judicial review concerning the adequacy of care assessments and care provision during school holidays and weekends, together with aids and adaptations to the family home.

The claimants also sought interim relief requiring Wandsworth to provide specified levels of care. The court considered whether the care assessments were irrational or failed to address how the children’s needs would be met, and whether Wandsworth had properly considered provision under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 as an alternative to a means-tested disabled facilities grant.

1. Care assessments. The assessments had to be made in the context of the family and environment factor and parenting capacity. The reports recognised the substantial stress and exhaustion experienced by the parents. The assessment relied upon was the professional judgment of an experienced social worker, and its rationality had not been successfully challenged. The suggestion that it failed to assess the parents’ ability to provide care was rejected.
2. The reasoning in R v Ealing London Borough Council, ex parte C [1999] 3 CCLR 122, concerning failure to address practical problems facing a disabled child and family, did not establish arguable unlawfulness on these facts. The care assessments were sufficiently supported and justified. Permission to apply for judicial review on the care issue was refused.
3. Funding. The court left Wandsworth’s budgetary considerations out of account at the initial assessment stage. Although funding might later temper the legal obligation to provide desirable care, it was not relevant to the assessment of initial need.
4. Aids and adaptations. It was arguable that Wandsworth had failed to consider provision under section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, despite that scheme having been raised previously. Permission was therefore granted on the aids and adaptations issue. The interim relief sought in relation to care was refused, directions for expedition were made, and costs of the hearing were ordered to be dealt with as specified, with other costs reserved.

Not stated in the judgment. This was a first-instance application for permission to apply for judicial review.