Spotlight
Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2021 edition due out in May
Court of Protection Practice 2021
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Spotlight
Latest articles
Disabled women more than twice as likely to experience domestic abuse
The latest data from the Office of National Statistics shows that, in the year ending March 2020, around 1 in 7 (14.3%) disabled people aged 16 to 59 years experienced any form of domestic abuse in...
The President of the Family Division endorses Public Law Working Group report
The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary has published a message from the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, in which the President endorses the publication of the President’s...
HMCTS updates online divorce services guidance
HM Courts and Tribunals Service have recently updated the online divorce services guidance with the addition of guides for deemed and dispensed service applications, alternative service...
Become the new General Editor of The Family Court Practice, the definitive word on family law and procedure
The Family Court Practice (‘The Red Book’) is widely acknowledged as the leading court reference work for all family practitioners and the judiciary. We are currently recruiting a...
The suspension, during lockdown, of prison visits for children: was it lawful?
Jake Richards, 9 Gough ChambersThis article argues that the suspension on prison visits during this period and the deficiency of measures to mitigate the impact of this on family life and to protect...
View all articles
Authors

LOCAL AUTHORITY: R (O) v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council [2011] EWCA Civ 925

Sep 29, 2018, 17:47 PM
Slug : 2011EWCACiv925
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Aug 16, 2011, 11:22 AM
Article ID : 95465

(Court of Appeal; Rix, Lloyd and Black LJJ; 28 July 2011)

An autistic child had complex needs. The family argued the child should attend a residential school for 52 week placement. The authority argued that the child should be accommodated in one school for most of the year, while attending a different school (both closer to home than parents' choice) and live at home for the remainder of the time. 

At issue was whether the child should become a ‘looked after child' under s 20.  Even if the parent's right to express a preference as to the school might be relevant to accommodation under s 20, the parents' choice in this case was a private school, so parental preference was not binding, but merely a factor. The earlier tribunal ruled that the child's education did not require a residential placement. Various experts had recommended 52 week residential placement. The judge considered that a tribunal ruling had been overtaken by the authority's own assessment that a residential placement was needed. The authority had given too much weight to the tribunal ruling and had not fully considered or given sufficient weight to number of transitions inherent in the proposal, which conflicted with its own assessment that the child needed stability and structure.

On that basis the authority's decision was irrational and must be reconsidered but no mandatory order to place child at parents' choice. Both the child and authority appealed.

Child's appeal dismissed. Section 1(1) of the Children Act 1989 did not mean that in judicial review proceedings the child's welfare was paramount. Local authority refused permission to appeal.

Categories :
  • Archive
  • Judgments
Tags :
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from