O v Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council

A child is not a looked-after child merely because a local authority provides financial or other support after the child moves to live with a relative. The question is determined by the statutory test under the Children Act 1989, applied to the circumstances at the time of the placement. The court must ask, among other sequential questions, whether the child appeared to the local authority to require accommodation. A private family arrangement may remain private even where the authority is involved in supporting it. The assessment is fact-sensitive and must distinguish local-authority accommodation from assistance provided under section 17.

The claimant, a child approaching 17, sought a declaration that she had been a looked-after child from the time she moved from one relative’s home to live with another relative in January 2008. She also sought financial compensation and services said to follow from that status.

The authority maintained that the placement was a private family arrangement. It accepted that it had provided financial assistance, but said that assistance was provided under section 17 of the Children Act 1989, rather than because the claimant was accommodated by the authority under section 20. The central issue was whether, on the facts, the claimant appeared to the authority to require accommodation.

1. The claim for a declaration that the claimant was a looked-after child failed. The court made no order for costs.

2. The relevant approach was the sequential statutory test identified in R(A)-v-Croydon [2009] LGR 24 and approved in R(G)-v-Southwark [2009] UKHL 26. The key question in this case was whether, in January 2008, the claimant was a child who appeared to the local authority to require accommodation.

3. The court considered the records as a whole. They showed that the authority understood the arrangement to have been made within the family. The relative had come forward as a carer, the discussions proceeded on the basis that the child would live with her, and the financial discussions concerned a residence allowance rather than the provision of accommodation or the wider services associated with looked-after status.

4. The authority’s decision to provide section 17 payments, calculated to produce support equivalent to a residence allowance, did not convert the private placement into local-authority accommodation. Nor did the authority’s consideration of assessments or its involvement in resolving financial difficulties establish that it had arranged the placement or regarded itself as the decision-maker.

5. The letter of 16 January 2008 was capable of supporting the claimant’s argument when read in isolation. In the light of the complete records, however, it did not show that the authority considered itself responsible for arranging the placement or that the claimant was a looked-after child.

6. The claimant was therefore not a looked-after child at the material time. The claim was dismissed.