High Court quashes assessment that child was not 'in need'

The High Court has quashed an assessment by the London Borough of Lambeth after it failed to re-assess whether a child - after a diagnosis of autism - was in need of assistance.

Children AC and SH brought proceedings through their mother for an order quashing the original assessment and directing a fresh one on the basis that it had been procedurally unfair that she was not given an opportunity to correct an adverse view of her honesty when Lambeth determined whether she was in danger of homelessness and destitution.

The mother also complained that although Lambeth has acknowledged a subsequent diagnosis of AC's autism it failed to re-assess him as an autistic child in need.

Lambeth’s assessment concluded that the family was neither destitute nor at genuine risk of homelessness and so did not require any additional services.

This court said this proceeded from explicit adverse findings of the mother’s credibility, made on the basis that she had deliberately misled Lambeth, while there were alternatives available to the family to avoid destitution.

Cheema-Grubb J said in AC & SH, R (On the Application Of) v London Borough of Lambeth Council [2017] EWHC 1796 that she had to decide whether the mother had “a fair and proper opportunity, at a stage when a possible adverse decision was no more than provisional, to deal with important points which may weigh against the claimants”.

The judge said: “Having considered the criticisms made of it with care I am satisfied that the s.17 Children Act 1989 'in need' assessment reached in September 2016 was reached after a fair process not tainted by public law error.”

Her reasons included that the adverse credibility findings against Ms Campbell, “for which there was ample justification, were only part of the picture.

“The failure to obtain any work at all by the time of the assessment, together with a lack of evidence of sustained efforts to gain employment were important features in the minds of the defendant's social workers who had to determine the position.”

A challenge on the grounds of failing to reassess AC was though successful.

The judge said: “The defendant does not appear to have determined at all whether if services, including accommodation, are not provided to AC he would be unlikely to achieve or maintain a reasonable standard of health and development or whether in that situation his health or development would be likely to be significantly impaired.

“I am driven to the conclusion that the defendant has failed to carry out an assessment of AC as a child in need despite the indications from his mother than he had needed support and the confirmation of those difficulties in the post September 2016 autism assessment.”

The judge quashed the September 2016 assessment and ordered a fresh one to be carried out.

Mark Smulian