P, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Newham

Where a local authority is looking after an eligible child, it must comply with the statutory leaving-care framework. It must assess the child’s needs and prepare a pathway plan in accordance with Schedule 2 to the Children Act 1989 and the Children (Leaving Care) (England) Regulations 2001. An alternative transitional process, however suitable in practical terms, does not discharge those duties. The court may declare the breach and order production of a compliant assessment and pathway plan within a specified period. The approach should be prompt, but not so rushed that it produces unsatisfactory answers.

The claimant was a severely disabled child approaching his eighteenth birthday who had been accommodated by the defendant local authority. His grandmother sought information and arrangements for his transition to adulthood. Judicial review proceedings followed after the authority failed to produce the assessment and pathway plan required by the statutory leaving-care regime.

The authority had operated an alternative transitional plan, under which the claimant would remain in his existing placement and education until about age 19. The central issue was whether that process satisfied the authority’s statutory duties.

1. Declaration and order. The authority had failed to comply with its statutory duties. The court declared the breach and ordered completion of the required assessment, a draft pathway plan by 5 October 2004, and a final pathway plan by 12 October 2004.
2. Under paragraph 19B(4) of Schedule 2 to the Children Act 1989, an authority must assess an eligible child’s needs to determine the advice, assistance and support appropriate both while the authority continues to look after the child and after it ceases to do so. It must then prepare a pathway plan.
3. The Children (Leaving Care) (England) Regulations 2001 prescribe the assessment and planning process. Regulation 5 requires a written statement explaining how needs will be assessed. Regulation 7 requires the assessment to be completed, for an eligible child, no later than three months after the child reaches 16. Regulation 8 requires the pathway plan to follow as soon as possible. Regulation 9 requires reviews at intervals of no more than six months.
4. The authority had taken steps to meet the claimant’s needs, but its alternative transitional plan did not satisfy the statutory requirements. Good intentions, suitable care or an internally preferred process could not replace compliance with clear statutory duties.
5. The case was adjourned to 26 October 2004 for any necessary review of compliance. Other relief, including possible Human Rights Act relief and damages, was adjourned. The defendant was ordered to pay the claimant’s costs of the day and of the proceedings to date, subject to detailed assessment.

Judicial review proceedings were commenced after the local authority failed to comply with the statutory leaving-care requirements. Interim orders were made by Mr Nicholas Blake QC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, and by Collins J on 9 September 2004. The Administrative Court then granted declaratory and mandatory relief.