LH & Anor, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Lambeth

A local authority’s assessment of a child in need and the child’s carer must clearly identify the needs requiring attention and the services or intervention proposed to meet them. A care plan must be based on the assessment and provide a realistic basis for action and review. It is not the court’s role to choose between residential placement and support at home. The court may intervene where the authority’s preference for an inadequately identified package of support is irrational.

The claim concerned the adequacy of assessments and care planning for LH, a disabled child with autism, learning difficulties and significant medical and behavioural problems. His mother, MH, said that she could no longer cope with his behaviour at home and sought consideration of a residential school placement.

The local authority produced a Core Assessment, a Carer’s Assessment and a Care Plan proposing community-based support and a parenting strategy. The claimants challenged the failure to identify and implement adequate assistance, and alleged irrationality in preferring that approach to residential placement.

1. Declaration granted. The defendant was in breach of its assessment obligations under Part III of the Children Act 1989, as supplemented by the Children Act 2004, the Carers (Recognition and Services) Act 1995 and the Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000.
2. The assessment had to identify LH’s needs and MH’s needs as carer, separately from the subsequent care plan. The assessments identified the behavioural difficulties and the need for boundaries and regained control, but did not clearly identify what intervention would meet those needs. The proposed support largely repeated existing respite arrangements, while the parenting programme remained substantially unidentified.
3. The court’s function was supervisory. It was not for the court to decide whether residential placement or properly considered support at home was preferable. However, preferring a largely undefined package of support to residential placement was seriously flawed and irrational in the circumstances.
4. A fully considered package of support might rationally meet the family’s needs. The court declined to declare separately that residential placement was required or that the planning decision was unlawful. Planning followed from the assessment, and caution was required before expressing views on planning or implementation.
5. The authority was expected urgently to identify a social worker to work with MH and to consider whether fresh assessments should precede the pending SENDIST appeal. The claimants were entitled to their costs without limitation.