County council defends High Court challenge over care assessments for boy and parents

HHJ Richard Williams, sitting as a judge of the High Court, said C, who brought the case through his father, had failed to show the council acted wrongly.

C challenged  assessments of him and of his parents as carers. He is 16 and has Down syndrome, complex special educational needs and lives with his parents and two siblings in a touring caravan, which includes a combined shower and chemical cassette toilet room. The family spends some 60% of the year travelling out of the county.

Worcestershire has provided C with three calls per week from agency carers who took him to a hotel to be bathed, whether C was in or out of county.

But in late 2023, Worcestershire completed a child in need assessment, which concluded that because of the degree to which C had developed his independence skills he no longer needed carers to support him with bathing, and that C could use the same bathing facilities as the family with the support and encouragement of his parents.

The council consequently ceased the bathing support, and C issued the judicial review claim in response.

This was on two grounds. The first was that Worcestershire’s assessments of the C and his parents' social care needs were irrational and the second an alleged breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights because a failure to meet his social care needs resulted in undignified conditions and a failure to respect his cultural identity as a Romany and Traveller.

C also argued that Worcestershire made a “leap in logic” in concluding it could terminate carer provision without explaining how this could be reconciled with the vulnerable state of C's parents.

Worcestershire assessed it would be beneficial for C to develop independent living skills and that he could develop the skills to independently use the toilet and shower in the caravan such that carer support should be terminated.

But C said the council should have asked itself was whether his social care needs could be met without social care support as there was no cogent evidence that he yet had such skills.

The council said there had been considerable engagement with the parents over their health issues and there was no reason why they could not provide the limited support necessary to enable C to wash and use the toilet in the caravan.

Worcestershire concluded C can use the caravan shower and toilet and there is no barrier to the family providing the limited support necessary.

The judge said: “In conclusion, I am satisfied that [Worcestershire] identified and grappled with the relevant difficulties faced by C and his family, engaged with the concerns raised by the family, and reached conclusions which were reasonably supported by the evidence. In my judgment [Worcestershire’s] reasoning did not contain a critical gap or logical error.”

HHJ Richard Williams also dismissed the second ground about Article 8. He said: “Properly analysed, C's Article 8 claim is in substance a collateral and impermissible challenge to the adequacy and operation of the package of support, which pre-dated the decision under challenge and has remained in place pending the determination of these proceedings.”

Mark Smulian