A court has found that a local authority breached the human rights of a disabled child when it unlawfully issued care proceedings.
TV Edwards solicitors secured an order at Newcastle County Court declaring that the rights of a significantly disabled child were breached by her local authority, Northumberland County Council.
The order related to article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which concerns the right to private and family life.
The court also agreed a damages settlement of £50,000.
The council had unlawfully issued care proceedings and had required the child’s mother and siblings to leave the family home while these were ongoing.
No input was sought from multi-sensory impairment experts about care package changes
The court’s order also records that changes made to the child’s bespoke care and education package during the care proceedings had a negative impact on her, causing her significant distress.
TV Edwards associate solicitor Shaun Livingston acted for Ella Chapple, a child with complex disabilities and needs, including deafblindness, learning disabilities and WAGR syndrome (a rare genetic disorder).
Acting via Ella’s mother Elly Chapple, who was also her litigation friend, the law firm brought a claim against the local authority alleging that care proceedings, brought in April 2020, were unnecessary and disproportionate for a variety of reasons.
These included that:
- Relevant professionals had agreed, at a meeting to discuss concerns only two weeks before care proceedings were issued, that there was no cause to even place Ella on a child protection plan (a step often taken as a less intrusive alternative to care proceedings), let alone issue care proceedings
- Fresh allegations and concerns communicated to the council after that meeting were simply accepted and not properly investigated or scrutinised, despite the individual who made those allegations having attended the meeting and stating they had no concerns
- Ella’s parents were sent a letter before care proceedings were issued, stating that, following the meeting, Northumberland had tried to work with them to improve matters but that this had not been successful. However, the council was unable to identify any work that had been attempted in the short space of time between the meeting and the decision to issue care proceedings.
Inappropriate care changes
The claim also pleaded that changes made to Ella’s care and education package while care proceedings were ongoing from April 2020 to December 2020 were inappropriate and caused Ella significant distress.
Professionals had agreed two weeks previously there was no cause to even place Ella on a child protection plan let alone issue care proceedings
She is entitled to a bespoke, wraparound package of education and care as ordered by the SEND Tribunal in 2017. This comprises a waking day curriculum, delivered by a dedicated team of trained interveners, in a manner suited to Ella’s needs. This should include:
Ensuring that communication with Ella involves signing as well as verbal communication
Ensuring that Ella’s day is well structured and defined by routine, with Ella being given advance notice of any changes or one-off activities so that she is prepared and not unduly distressed by any such changes
A compassionate and reassuring approach when Ella is agitated or upset to minimise the risk of any episodes of self-harm and their impact if and when they occur.
While the care proceedings were ongoing, Northumberland County Council unilaterally arranged for its in-house care service to oversee and implement Ella’s education and care package. This had previously been managed by her mother via direct payments.
This care service dictated radically different approaches to Ella’s care, with no expert input sought from multi-sensory impairment professionals as to whether such changes would be appropriate for Ella’s needs.
The care service, which did not have any experience or expertise in deafblindness, made changes including:
Reducing or stopping Ella from going on regular drives in the car, something that had been proven to be a calming, self-regulating process for her
Ignoring Ella when she was agitated or upset until she stopped (resulting in Ella’s behaviour escalating and increased frequency and severity of self-harm)
Introducing changes to Ella’s schedule with little or no notice.
Agreement and redress
Following the serving of civil proceedings in May 2022, alleging that Ella’s human rights were breached, the parties were
able to reach agreement in September 2024.
This agreement set out that Ella’s human rights were indeed breached by the council inappropriately issuing care proceedings, and that the changes made to Ella’s care package – as well as Northumberland’s requirement that her mother and siblings leave the family home while care proceedings were ongoing – had a detrimental effect on Ella.
Ella’s solicitor Shaun Livingston said: “I am glad that we were able to secure some form of redress for Ella and her family – what happened to Ella should not have happened and, while this case cannot undo that, I am pleased that the local authority has at least recognised that things went wrong. We hope Ella’s case can help prevent repeat occurrences for other families.”
Ella was represented by Shaun Livingston, associate solicitor at of TV Edwards, and Steve Broach KC and Victoria-Butler Cole KC of 39 Essex Chambers. The information for this article was provided by TV Edwards
