Spotlight
Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'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
Practical aspects to assessing competence in children
Rebecca Stevens, Partner, Royds Withy KingThis is an article regarding the practical aspects to assessing competence in children. The article explores a range of practicalities, such as meeting a...
Scrumping the crop of recent pension decisions
Rhys Taylor, 36 Family and 30 Park PlaceJonathan Galbraith, Mathieson Consulting2020 has thus far proved to be a memorable year for all the wrong reasons, but nonetheless it remains an interesting one...
Conduct in financial remedies – when is it now a relevant consideration?
Rachel Gillman, 1 GC/Family LawThis article provides an overview of all aspects of financial misconduct following the recent decision of Mostyn J in OG v AG [2020] EWFC 52, wherein all aspects of...
The treatment of RSUs/Stock Options in light of XW v XH
Peter Mitchell QC, 29 Bedford RowStock Options and Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) are frequently encountered by the Family Court when dividing property on divorce or dissolution of a Civil Partnership....
Hundreds of thousands of companies worldwide fall victims to hackers every year. Is your firm one of them?
SPONSORED CONTENT Image source: Information is beautifulYou and other lawyers and legal assistants in your firm likely have accounts on the hacked websites listed in the image above. If a hacker...
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