In Hertfordshire Council v NK (2020) EWHC 139 (Fam) the question before MacDonald J was whether the Court should grant a deprivation of liberty order (“DOL Order”) under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court in respect of AK, aged 16, and with a diagnosis of ADHD and a conduct disorder, leading to a history of self-harm, suicidal ideation and low mood. The Council’s application for a DOL Order was opposed by AK’s Children’s Guardian, AK’s mother, NK, did not appear, and was not represented.

Read more »

R (Aburas) v Southwark LBC (2019) EWHC Civ 2754 (Admin) was, as the Judge put it, a claim for judicial review is found on that part of the legal map where there is an intersection between (i) local authority functions of assessing and meeting adult needs for care and support under Part I of the Care Act 2014 (CA14) and (ii) human rights arguments invoking the Convention rights in Article 3 (protection from inhuman and degrading treatment) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of Schedule 1 to the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA98).   The essence of the claimant’s argument was that, linked to but wider than being destitute and in need of accommodation and subsistence, he had a ‘looked-after need’ of support by a social worker to access food and medication, which support required for its effective delivery the provision of accommodation, refusing which supported accommodation had consequences so serious as to breach his Convention rights. The essence of the Council’s’ defence of the claim was that, even if (which was not accepted) the claimant was destitute and in need of accommodation and subsistence, it is to the Home Secretary through Asylum Support that he must look for human rights-compatible action, the Council having lawfully discharged its statutory ‘looked-after needs’ functions under CA14 read with HRA98. Read more »

In R (JA) v Bexley LBC (2019) EWHC 130 (Admin) there was a decision, following an assessment, that children were not in need of accommodation and support pursuant to Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 (“the 1989 Act”). The Judge described the legal framework as follows:-

(1)       The general duty under Section 17(1), together with paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 to, the 1989 Act imposes a duty upon local authorities to assess the needs of putative children in need: R (G) v LB Barnet [2004] 2 AC 208;

(2)       A child without accommodation is a child in need within the meaning of Section 17(10): R (G) v Barnet; Read more »

The Grand Chamber of the CJEU has ruled, in Case C-147/17, Sindicatul Familia Constanta v Directia Generala de Assistenta Sociala, that Article 1(3) of Directive 2003/88/EC concerning working time, read in conjunction with Article 2(2) of Directive 89/391/EEC, on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers, must be interpreted as meaning that the work performed by a foster parent, under an employment contract with a public authority, which consists in taking in a child, integrating that child into his or her household and ensuring, on a continuous basis, the harmonious upbringing and education of that child, does not come within the scope of the Working Time Directive.

In R (T) v SoS for Education (2018) EWHC 2582 (Admin) three parents and their three children applied for judicial review of the policy of the SoS to grant additional free childcare to working parents, but deny it to lone parents unable to work. Lewis J held that the provision of an additional 15 hours of free childcare to the children of working parents did not breach ECHR Article 14 read with Article 8, despite a differential treatment between families where one parent worked and lone parents who were unable to work because they were carers or were the victims of domestic violence. The childcare policy was intended to enable parents to return to work, or work more hours. It was objectively justified.

R ( VI ) v Lewisham LBC ( 2018 ) EWHC 2180 ( Admin ) is concerned with the Care Act 2014, the Care & Support ( Eligibilty Criteria ) Regulations 2015, and related guidance. The Judge reiterated ( para 67 ) that community care assessments must not be subject to over-zealous textual analysis, and ( para 68 ) that the level of detail required in an assessment is essentially a matter for the local authority.

The Appeal to the Supreme Court in Williams v Hackney LBC (2018) UKSC 37 concerned the limits of a local authority’s powers and duties to provide accommodation for children in need under s 20 of the Children Act 1989 (“CA”). The Supreme Court holds that there had been a lawful basis for the children’s continued accommodation under s 20. Read more »

In R (Juttla) v Hertfordshire Valleys Clinical Commissioning Group (2018) EWHC 267 (Admin) Mostyn J set aside the resolution made by the Defendant on 16 November 2017 to remove funding of £600,000 annually from Nascot Lawn in Watford (a respite service for children with complex medical needs) with effect from 16 May 2018. The consequence is that the Defendant must now comply with its legal duty formally to consult Hertfordshire County Council (HCC) about its proposal to withdraw that funding.

The Defendant maintained that it was not funding a “health service” within the terms of Sections 3 and 3A of the National Health Service Act 2006. The Judge ruled however that the services provided at Nascot Lawn are health services.  That being so, Regulation 23 of the Local Authority (Public Health, Health and Wellbeing Boards and Health Scrutiny) Regulations 2013 (SI 2013 No. 218), falls within Part 4 of the Statutory Instrument which is entitled “Health Scrutiny by Local Authorities”. That Part establishes a scheme whereby local authorities will be fully and formally consulted on any major health service changes in their area, will have the opportunity to scrutinise them, and in the absence of agreement will have the opportunity of seeking redress from the Secretary of State. Read more »

Re A-F (Children) (2018) EWHC 138 (Family) is a number of test cases listed before the President of the Family Division, Sir James Munby. They raise various substantive and procedural questions in relation to the interface between care proceedings brought in the Family Court pursuant to Part IV of the Children Act 1989 and the requirements of Article 5 of the Convention, specifically, the circumstances in which Article 5 is engaged in relation to a child in the care of the local authority and, where Article 5 is engaged, what procedures are required to ensure that there is no breach of the requirements of Articles 5(2)-(4).

The President dealt with the general principles from paragraphs 8 to 40 inclusive of his Judgment, the question of whether it is possible to identify a “minimum age” at paragraphs 41-44 inclusive, and process and procedure at paragraphs 46-53 inclusive, the interface with care proceedings at paragraph 54, and continuing review at paragraphs 55/56. Read more »

The Supreme Court on 15 November 2017 in R (HC) v SoS for DWP (2017) UKSC 73 has unanimously upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal (2015) EWCA Civ 49, for substantially the same reasons.  The case concerns Mrs HC.  She is an Algerian national who has been living in the UK since 2009. She arrived with leave but then over-stayed.  In 2010 she married a British national on whom she depended financially. She had two children by him, in 2011 and 2013. Her children are British nationals. The relationship ended after domestic violence in late 2012, when Mrs HC sought help from her local authority.  Oldham Council, after initially refusing, agreed to provide Mrs HC and her children with temporary housing and £80.50 per week for subsistence and utilities, under Section 17 of the Children Act 1989. Read more »