J, R (on the application of) v Caerphilly County Borough Council

A local authority performing its leaving-care duties must prepare an assessment and pathway plan within the statutory timescale and involve the young person so far as reasonably practicable. The pathway plan must be an explicit operational document identifying the young person’s needs, the required action, the responsible person and the completion date.

A personal adviser may be an authority employee, but must perform that distinct role. The adviser may participate in preparing the assessment and plan, but may not undertake those statutory functions. A child’s unwillingness to engage does not relieve the authority of its duties.

J, a child subject to a care order and eligible for leaving-care support, sought judicial review of Caerphilly County Borough Council’s compliance with the Children Act 1989 and the Children (Leaving Care) (Wales) Regulations 2001. He challenged the appointment and role of his personal adviser, the lateness and inadequacy of the needs assessment and pathway plan, and the authority’s alleged failure to secure suitable accommodation after his release from custody.

The central issues were whether the statutory process had been lawfully conducted, whether the pathway plan met the required standard, and whether the evidence justified relief concerning accommodation.

1. Personal adviser. Appointment of a local-authority employee was not unlawful or necessarily undesirable. However, the adviser had to act in the distinct capacity of personal adviser. Regulations 7 and 12 required the authority to undertake the assessment and prepare the pathway plan, with the adviser participating and providing views. The adviser could not undertake those statutory functions.
2. Process. The assessment and pathway plan were produced substantially out of time. The authority also failed adequately to seek and take account of J’s views, enable his participation, and provide the documents without delay. Those failures breached regulations 6 and 7 and paragraph 19C of Schedule 2.
3. Content. A pathway plan had to be explicit and operational. It had to identify each relevant need, the action required, the responsible person and the date for completion. Vague commitments such as exploring options, arranging appointments, or acting as soon as possible were insufficient. The plan also had to address education and training, independence skills, financial support, health, accommodation and contingency arrangements in sufficient detail to permit compliance to be checked.
4. Non-engagement. J’s refusal or failure to engage did not excuse the authority’s statutory duties. If engagement made compliance impracticable, the assessment and plan had to explain the steps taken and why full compliance was not reasonably practicable. They should also state what cooperation was expected from the child and the consequences of non-cooperation.
5. Outcome. The evidence did not justify accommodation relief. The claim nevertheless succeeded concerning the personal adviser, assessment and pathway plan. The agreed order required appointment of a proper personal adviser and production of a lawful assessment and pathway plan.