FL (A Child), R (on the application of) v London Borough of Lambeth

A local authority’s decision whether a child appears to require accommodation under section 20 of the Children Act 1989 involves an evaluative judgment. The court should not interfere where the authority has acted reasonably, considered relevant matters, excluded irrelevant matters and reached a rational conclusion.

The child’s wishes and feelings require due consideration, but they do not determine the outcome. Where a parent is willing and able to provide suitable care, and the alleged risk can be managed through appropriate services, the authority may lawfully decline to accommodate the child away from home.

Failure to comply with assessment guidance may be unlawful, but relief may be refused where the breach is historic and caused no continuing prejudice.

FL, aged 17, sought judicial review of Lambeth’s handling of her needs following a rape, suicide attempt, threats associated with gang activity and a breakdown in her relationship with her mother. She alleged failures to assess her under section 17 of the Children Act 1989, accommodate her under section 20, investigate under section 47, and comply with welfare duties under section 11 of the Children Act 2004.

The central dispute was whether FL could safely live with her mother in the Stockwell and Brixton area, or whether Lambeth was required to provide accommodation elsewhere. A rolled-up judicial review hearing followed the grant of interim accommodation.

1. Judicial review and section 20. The application failed on the central issue. Section 20 required Lambeth to decide whether FL appeared to require accommodation because the person caring for her was prevented from providing suitable accommodation or care. That required an evaluative judgment concerning FL, her mother, the accommodation and the surrounding circumstances.
2. Lambeth was entitled to conclude that FL’s mother was willing and able to care for her and that the immediate surroundings of the family home were not shown to be unsafe. The alleged perpetrator did not know the address and belonged to a gang operating in a different area. FL’s repeated returns to the area also supported the conclusion that she was not unable to return home because of fear.
3. The authority was entitled to take account of the risk that independent accommodation would expose FL to further danger. Her wishes for a flat or semi-independent accommodation required due consideration, but did not control the decision. The preference for foster care while she remained vulnerable was also a matter for Lambeth, not the court, provided the decision was lawful.
4. The court adopted the evaluative approach reflected in R(A) v Croydon London Borough Council [2009] LGR 24 and R(G) v Southwark LBC [2009] 1 WLR 1299. It held that, where the authority acts reasonably, considers relevant matters and disregards irrelevant matters, the court should not interfere.
5. Lambeth had failed initially to comply with the assessment guidance issued under section 7 of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970. The initial and first core assessments were delayed, and the first assessment was not brought up to date. Those failures were unlawful, but historic. A later, comprehensive assessment had been completed, so no relief was appropriate.
6. No unlawful failure to conduct a section 47 inquiry or breach of the section 11 welfare duty was established. The claim for judicial review was permitted to proceed but failed, subject to any further submissions on relief for the historic assessment failures.

First-instance judicial review decision. The court granted permission at the rolled-up hearing but dismissed the substantive application.