A And B (Minors: placement, faith)

Local-authority placement decisions involving a child’s religious manifestation must give proper consideration to religious persuasion, family life, education and welfare. No statutory factor automatically prevails. The court must distinguish ordinary public-law review from Convention proportionality review.

Under Articles 8 and 9, the court must determine whether the proposed restrictions on religious practice are necessary and proportionate. A placement involving substantial interference with observance requires significant countervailing welfare considerations. A child’s limited understanding or disability does not remove the right to manifest the religion of the family and community.

Two brothers with significant disabilities challenged Manchester City Council’s decisions to offer respite or assessment accommodation at Birtenshaw rather than at Bayis Sheli, an exclusively orthodox Jewish residential home.

The claim concerned the Children Act 1989, Articles 8, 9 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and the Equality Act 2010. The principal issues were whether the proposed arrangements permitted the boys to observe kosher dietary laws and the Sabbath, whether the statutory accommodation duties were engaged, and whether the decisions were irrational, disproportionate or discriminatory.

1. Outcome. A’s claim succeeded. The proposal for a 12-week assessment placement at Birtenshaw was unlawful and breached his Convention rights. B’s claim failed. A fortnightly overnight stay at Birtenshaw was not unlawful, disproportionate or discriminatory.
2. Under Part III of the Children Act 1989, the court reviews a local authority’s accommodation decision on conventional public-law grounds and must not substitute its own welfare decision. The question whether accommodation is required under section 20(1)(c) is ordinarily for the authority, subject to rationality and legality.
3. The authority must give due consideration to the child’s wishes and feelings, religious persuasion, cultural background, family life, education and disability. These factors have no fixed order of precedence. The authority must balance them lawfully and rationally.
4. Convention review is distinct and more intensive. The court must determine whether interference with religious manifestation is prescribed by law, pursues a legitimate aim, is rationally connected to it, goes no further than necessary and strikes a fair balance. The local authority bears the burden of justification.
5. For A, the care plan did not provide realistic arrangements for the Friday evening Sabbath meal, Saturday observance or Passover. Given his limited capacity and the proposed restrictions on attendance by a mashgiach or other observant Jew, the interference with Articles 8 and 9 was substantial. The local authority had not shown that placing him at Birtenshaw was necessary when Bayis Sheli and home support were available.
6. For B, the shorter placement could be managed with cold or takeaway food and did not materially prevent religious observance. The proposed arrangements were therefore proportionate and not irrational. The court observed that longer weekend or holiday placements would require reconsideration.

This was a first-instance judicial review claim in the Administrative Court. The judgment records earlier permission, interim-relief and directions hearings but no prior merits decision.