Court of Appeal
Published March 8, 2011
Regina (RO) v East Riding of Yorkshire Council
Before Lord Justice Rix, Lady Justice Smith and Lord Justice Richards
[Judgment March 2]
Advertisement
A local authority remained responsible for a severely autistic boy aged 15 even though he had been placed in a residential special school in fulfilment of a statement of special educational needs.
The Court of Appeal so held allowing an appeal by RO, suing by his stepfather and litigation friend, from the dismissal by Mr Justice Cranston ([2010] EWHC 489 (Admin)) of his application for judicial review of the decision of East Riding of Yorkshire Council that his status as a child looked after under section 20 of the Children Act 1989 ceased once he became a boarder at a specialist residential school, Horton House.
Mr Nicholas Bowen, QC and Miss Shu Shin Luh for the child; Mr Stephen Bellamy, QC and Ms Sally Gore for the local authority; Mr Clive Sheldon for the Secretary of State for Education, intervening.
LORD JUSTICE RIX said the litigation was about what was to happen to RO when he emerged from Horton House into the wider world. If he remained a looked-after child he would be entitled to receive the benefits of that status from the local authority until he was at least 21. The case raised an interesting and important question about the relationship of the 1989 Act and the Education Act 1996. His Lordship described the lengthy negotations and litigation between RO’s parents and the local authority which had resulted in his school placement.
The local authority had decided that once placed at the school, RO’s welfare needs would be met by the educational placement under the 1996 Act and renounced all future 1989 Act responsibility. The judge had endorsed the local authority’s view of the situation.
Advertisement
It was not in dispute that RO required accommodation. Both his parents could not cope with him all the time; for all that, they were committed, capable and loving parents, and he required a residential setting for the specialist care and education which his disabilities demanded.
It was plain that RO required full-time accommodation in his specialist placement in order to give him the care, as well as the educational assistance, which his needs, and his parents’ inability to cope with and control him, demanded.
By treating the school placement as supplanting and ending his looked-after status, the local authority seemed to be mislabelling the situation and side-stepping their 1989 Act responsibilities. Ultimately it was the 1989 Act which was intended to provide holistic support for children in need.
Lady Justice Smith and Lord Justice Richards agreed.
Solicitors: Ms Ceinwen Rowles, Colchester; Mr Mathew Buckley, Beverley; Solicitor, Department of Education.