London Borough of Lewisham v SL

Summary

This case concerned SL, a 30-year-old woman with complex needs who lived with her parents. By the time of the hearing, there was broad agreement between the parties that SL should remain living at home with her parents with the current comprehensive package of support. It was also agreed that there should be a pause of at least six months in assessing SL for, and introducing her to, alternative placements, given the level of distress that the process of moving placements had caused her to date.

Theis J heard oral evidence from GF, the allocated social worker, DL and TL, SL’s parents, and Mr Caulfield, a jointly instructed independent social worker. The court was therefore presented with both professional and family evidence as to SL’s needs, risks, and day-to-day lived experience.

SL developed epilepsy in 2010 and was diagnosed with atypical autism in 2011. She moved to a specialist autism school in 2012. In early 2023 she was diagnosed with sleep apnoea. SL’s absconding behaviour began when she was 18 years old. She uses crack cocaine and, when she absconds, is exposed to very serious risks and harm. These risks have been a consistent feature throughout the proceedings and have significantly shaped care planning decisions.

In April 2024, the local authority formed the view that SL should move from her parents’ home into a supported living placement, MC, a position that was supported at that time by the Official Solicitor. Between April and July 2024 a transition plan was proposed, involving a period of familiarisation with MC staff followed by respite stays at MC. In July 2024 the local authority applied for urgent authorisation for SL to be discharged from hospital to MC, but the placement did not proceed because MC withdrew its offer.

This level of instability continued for the next year – by the end of August 2025 the local authority had contacted 21 supported living providers, all of whom either declined to offer a placement or had no suitable vacancies.

At the time of the hearing there were no concrete alternative placements for the court to consider. In her evidence, GF acknowledged the need for a tailored respite solution that met SL’s needs while providing meaningful relief to her parents. DL expressed concern that, as she and her husband get older, SL might in the longer term need to move to a residential care setting and that it would be beneficial for SL to become familiar with such environments gradually.

The local authority’s search had focused on core and cluster supported living and residential placements. SL required ground-floor accommodation or accommodation with lift access because of the risk of falls associated with her seizures. Providers needed experience of supporting individuals with autism, learning disability, challenging behaviour, and epilepsy.

Although the local authority’s initial position was that there should be no pause in assessing SL for and introducing her to new placements, following the oral evidence it accepted that a six-month pause was appropriate. GF stated that any future placement exploration would be undertaken in a staged and person-centred manner based on SL’s assessed needs.

Theis J observed how the proceedings had been long-running and repeatedly disrupted by significant evidential developments between hearings, with the consequence that carefully constructed plans were repeatedly derailed. The evidence demonstrated the very serious risks SL faced when she absconded and the damaging consequences of those events. Those risks had repeatedly undermined attempts to arrange respite care or any transition away from the family home.

The evidential reality at the time of the hearing was that there was only one viable option: for SL to remain living at home with the existing comprehensive care package. Although the longer-term plan remained to explore alternative placements, the parties agreed – and Theis J endorsed the proposition – that there should be a six-month pause in assessing SL for and introducing her to new placements, allowing SL and her family a period of respite and stability and enabling SL to build on early signs of improved engagement.

Theis J noted an ongoing concern that SL appeared overly dependent on her family and that care planning needed to place greater emphasis on supporting her to develop independence and to engage with people closer to her own age. Despite the broad areas of agreement, Theis J identified an element of drift in the care planning.

While recognising the dynamic and difficult circumstances, Theis J made clear that, with the proceedings coming to an end and the care package relatively stable, there must be renewed and proactive planning by the local authority.

This included solution-focused work to support SL’s engagement in community activities, a more creative and flexible approach to respite care, increased direct contact between the allocated social worker and SL and her family, clearer planning around the essential requirements for any future placement, and consideration of a more structured and informed decision-making framework, such as through a multidisciplinary team. The six-month pause was identified as an opportunity to establish this foundation. Theis J expressed concern that, without this foundational work, SL’s current placement would remain fragile and vulnerable to emergency breakdown.

Comment

The case illustrates issues that are not uncommon in Court of Protection proceedings, including long-running disputes, changing evidential landscapes, limited placement availability, and unstructured decision-making. The guidance given by the court, particularly in relation to avoiding drift in care planning, provides a valuable framework for practitioners seeking to manage complex cases more effectively and to ensure that best interests decision-making remains active, focused, and person-centred.