Facts: D was a 3-year-old child with a tracheostomy (tube in her throat), which was expected to remain for several years. She was to be looked after at home, on account of multiple medical conditions, but the main area of care involved the careful management of the tracheostomy, which required very careful cleaning and monitoring, if D was to avoid serious injury. D’s mother, B, undertook those tasks but needed respite care. Haringey assessed her as needing at least 10 hours more per week than was provided by the PCT. The PCT’s view was that such provision was unnecessary. B claimed that, if the PCT was not liable to make such provision, then Haringey was.

Judgment: Ouseley J held that Haringey was not liable to provide this type of respite care, under the provisions of the Children Act 1989 (or section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970), because it amounted to health care, rather than social care, and was implicitly excluded. The PCT was in principle responsible but had lawfully concluded that, in its view, such provision was not reasonably necessary and its conclusion did not amount to a violation of the family’s ECHR rights.