R B v Nottingham City Council
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MR JUSTICE SINGH |
| Judgment Date | 20 October 2011 |
| Neutral Citation | [2011] EWHC 2933 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 20 October 2011 |
| Docket Number | CO/6229/2011 |
[2011] EWHC 2933 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
Mr Justice Singh
CO/6229/2011
Mr A Suterwala (instructed by Bhatia Best, Nottingham NG1 7FF) appeared on behalf of the Claimant
Ms M McDonald (instructed by the Legal Services Department of Nottingham City Council) appeared on behalf of the Defendant
( )
Introduction
This claim for judicial review is brought with the permission of Mr Clive Lewis QC, sitting as a Deputy Judge of this court, which was granted on 25 July 2011. By his order he also directed that there was no need for a litigation friend in this case.
Earlier in these proceedings, on 11 July 2011, an order was made by Mr Mark Ockelton sitting as a Deputy Judge of this court prohibiting the identification of the claimant, who is a child. In order to see what the claimant challenges in this case it is convenient to go to the claim form at section 3, which specifies the following:
The defendant's refusals to accept:
(1) That the claimant is a "child in need" and to undertake a core assessment/care plan of her needs;
(2) A duty to the claimant, pursuant to section 20 of the Children Act 1989; and
(3) The accommodation provided to the claimant since 25 February 2011 was accommodation under section 20 of the Children Act and to accept that she is an "eligible" child. All of the decisions are asserted by that section of the claim form to have been made on 2 June 2011.
Material Facts
The claimant was born on 15 February 1994 and so, at all material times, she was 16 or now 17 years old. It is convenient, at this stage, to go to her witness statement in these proceedings. There she describes how until the middle of February 2011 she had grown up in the care of her birth mother and was living with her. Paragraphs 6 and 7 are important and I will cite those in full:
"6. I discovered that I was pregnant in late 2010 and approached my mother to inform her of the news. My mother was not at all happy with the news of my pregnancy and provided me with an ultimatum: either have an abortion or find alternative accommodation to live in. My mother expressed concern that she was not willing to have a young child growing up in the house and told me therefore I would have to find somewhere else to live.
7. By February 2011 I had made my mind up that I wanted to keep the baby and as my mother was standing firm with the ultimatum that she had provided I knew that I would have to find somewhere else to live. It was not my choice to leave and had my mother not asked me to go I would have stayed."
The claimant then describes in her witness statement how she approached Nottingham City Council's Housing Department for accommodation. She explains that being 16 at the time she was unaware that, as she puts it, it should have been social services helping her. She asked the housing department to provide her with alternative accommodation.
Around about 16 February, she explains, she received a telephone call from the Housing Department to say that a placement had become available at Aiden House in Nottingham. This is a facility which specialises in providing accommodation for pregnant young women and young mothers. She was told, during the telephone conversation, that a place would be available from 25 February 2011. She then describes the process by which "initial assessments" were carried out by Mr Rowan Griffiths, a social worker with the defendant authority. I will return to those assessments a little later in this judgment. Those assessments took place first in February and secondly in May 2011.
The claimant moved into Aiden House on 25 February and has remained there to date. On 18 August 2011 her son was born. She explains in her evidence that she had not lived on her own prior to moving to Aiden House and was not used to taking care of her own finances. She also explains in her evidence that she is currently on the waiting list of Aiden House for a move to the transitional flats, which are semi-independent lodgings, where she would have her own flat with her own living space, kitchen and bedroom, but continued on-site support from staff. She gives evidence in her statement that since moving into Aiden House her relationship with her mother has improved. However, her mother has still made it clear, since the birth of her son, that she cannot move back in to reside with her. She also sets out in her witness statement what she believes are to be her further needs in the coming years, going beyond the need of accommodation.
I will now turn to the first interim assessment made by the defendant authority. This began on 17 February 2011 and was completed on 23 February 2011. It was, as I have said, carried out by Mr Griffiths, a social worker with the defendant authority. I will cite material passages. Under a heading "Reason for Initial Assessment" the assessment states that the claimant presented at Housing Aid on 21 January 2011 stating her mother had asked her to leave the family home should she decide to keep her baby when he was born. Her baby was due on 28 August 2011. The same section explains that the claimant and her mother were subsequently seen at the family home by Mr Griffiths, and that the mother stated that the claimant could stay in her care until her baby was born. However, the mother believed that she would end up looking after both the claimant and her baby when he was born. The mother felt she had done her share of bringing up a baby; she felt that the claimant should take responsibility for caring for her baby and thus felt that it was best that the claimant should live independently.
The assessment also noted that the claimant stated that she wished to keep her baby, and recognised that her mother was clear that she needed to leave home. Both the claimant and her mother were described in the assessment as remaining close, and the mother informed Mr Griffiths that the claimant could visit her home every day and that she (the mother) would babysit and offer to care for her grandchild when he was born. However, she said that she did not wish the claimant and her baby to live with her as she (the mother) felt she would end up parenting both the claimant and her baby. There are other passages in the assessment to similar effect, in particular on page 3 of the assessment where it was made clear that the claimant had not realised that she would be looking to move home as soon as she was, but that she recognised that her mother was "serious about her moving on".
At page 4 of the assessment there was set out Mr Griffiths' analysis of the information gathered by him. That passage stated that the claimant was a pregnant 17-year-old girl currently living with her mother, that she presented at Housing Aid stating her mother wished her to leave home if she decided to keep her baby, and that she did wish to keep her baby. The assessment explained that the claimant's mother was spoken to by Mr Griffiths and stated that she had done her share of raising babies and did not wish to do it all over again as she knew that the claimant would expect her to do all the parenting and also look after the claimant as well.
The assessment went on to state that children's services had had no previous involvement with either the claimant or her family, and both the claimant and her mother stated that the claimant was able to parent her baby when he was born. In addition, both agreed that the claimant had good self-care skills. The assessment went on to note that the claimant would have good and regular support from her mother and father, as well as her boyfriend should she leave her mother's care. It noted that the claimant had already had an appointment to view Aiden House, and that she was on a waiting list for supportive accommodation via housing aid. It noted that it was fair to say that the claimant and her mother did not expect the claimant to move so soon. However, the claimant said that should she move into supportive accommodation she would rather move as soon as possible so that she could get into a routine in readiness for when her baby was born.
In summary, said Mr Griffiths, the claimant's mother had stated that if the claimant had not been pregnant housing aid would not have been alerted. There were no concerns in his view regarding the claimant's ability to care for her baby at present. Should issues be identified when the claimant's baby was born the claimant's mother would look to assist, however the claimant's mother felt that the claimant should take responsibility for caring for her baby when he was born. Mr Griffiths also included this passage in his analysis:
"[The claimant and her mother] do not see the need for children services input and at this stage I do not see a role for children services. I therefore recommend children services involvement to cease."
It would appear that, at least partly in response to letters on the claimant's behalf by solicitors, it was decided to visit the mother again in May 2011, and a second interim assessment was conducted by Mr Griffiths at that time. This began on 19 May 2011 and was completed on 27 May 2011. I will turn to material passages in that assessment now.
Under the "Reason for the Initial Assessment…" Mr Griffiths records that the assessment was to consider whether or not the claimant is unlikely to achieve or maintain, or to have the opportunity of achieving or maintaining, a reasonable...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The King (on behalf of TW) v Essex County Council
...that it would to the necessary extent be “provided by” the Defendant (see Hammersmith at [44], applied in R(B) v Nottingham City Council [2011] EWHC 2933 at 105 However, it is not provided under section 20. I am satisfied from the tender documentation (see the recitals and the extracts from......
-
R Sk v Nottingham City Council
...in January 2012 pending the determination of an appeal against the decision of Mr Justice Singh in R (B) v Nottingham City Council [2011] EWHC 2933 (Admin) which raised issues similar to those which arise in the present case. Permission to appeal having been granted by Hooper LJ on 8 May 20......