B, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Barnet

A local authority’s assessment of a child in need must be systematic and analytical. It must identify the child’s needs, the services required, those responsible for providing them and appropriate timescales. The resulting care plan must be a realistic and detailed operational plan, not merely a descriptive statement or collection of strategic objectives.

Under section 19 of the Education Act 1996, suitable education must be provided where the education offered is not reasonably practicable for the child. Parents are not acting unreasonably in refusing a placement which the proposed school considers unsuitable. Safeguarding duties require a proactive response to a child at risk of sexual exploitation.

The claimant, a disabled 15-year-old with learning difficulties, hearing problems and a history of sexual abuse, sought judicial review of the defendant local authority’s assessments, care planning, safeguarding decisions and educational provision.

The claim concerned whether the authority had complied with the Framework for the Assessment of Children in Need and Their Families, its duties under sections 10 and 11 of the Children Act 2004, its safeguarding guidance, and its duty under section 19 of the Education Act 1996. The authority had named a mainstream school in the claimant’s statement of special educational needs, although the school’s head teacher considered the placement unsuitable. The central issues were whether the assessment and plan were legally adequate and whether the authority had provided suitable education and adequate protection from sexual exploitation.

Application allowed. Permission was granted and judicial review succeeded. Declaratory and mandatory relief was to be agreed or determined by the court.

1. The authority’s assessments were largely descriptive and lacked proper analysis of the claimant’s needs. Consistently with the Framework for the Assessment of Children in Need and Their Families and AB and SB v Nottingham City Council [2001] EWHC Admin 235, a local authority must adopt a systematic approach addressing the child’s developmental needs, parenting capacity, and family and environmental factors.
2. The assessment must lead to a realistic plan of action. The plan must identify what is to be done, by whom and when. The claimant’s plan did not explain how the proposed educational support would address her emotional, behavioural, social and safeguarding needs. It was not a detailed operational plan of the kind required by R(J) v Caerphilly County Borough Council [2005] EWHC 586.
3. The court would not determine whether the named school was suitable for the purposes of the special educational needs appeal pending before the tribunal. However, for section 19 purposes, the school’s head teacher had clearly and cogently stated that the placement was unsuitable. Attendance was therefore not reasonably practicable, and the claimant’s parents had not acted unreasonably in preventing it. The authority was in breach of section 19 because it had failed to provide the full-time education identified in the statement. R(G) v Westminster City Council [2004] 1 WLR 1113 was distinguished.
4. The authority had failed adequately to discharge its safeguarding obligations. The guidance on sexual exploitation required a proactive approach. Responding only after incidents, or referring to a service which was not yet operating, was insufficient.

The authority’s continuing involvement with the claimant did not cure these failures. More should and could have been done to meet her needs.

First-instance judicial review in the Administrative Court. The judgment records a pending appeal to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal concerning the suitability of the named school.