Latest articles
UK Immigration Rough Sleeper Rule
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsThe UK government has recently introduced a controversial new set of rules that aim to make rough sleeping grounds for refusal or cancellation of a migrant’s...
Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v DV (A Child) [2021] EWHC 1037 (Fam)
(Family Division, Cohen J, 19 April 2021)Medical Treatment – 17-year-old had form of bone cancer and required surgery For comprehensive, judicially approved coverage of every important...
Domestic Abuse Bill
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsAfter years of development the Domestic Abuse Bill returned to the House of Lords in the UK on the 8th March 2021 to complete its report stage, one of the final...
Coercive control and children’s welfare in Re H-N and Others
When families come to strife, arrangements must be made for the future care of any children. In some circumstances, this means an application to the courts. These ‘private law orders’ can...
Profession: Expert Witness
The value of a family business or business interest is treated as an asset and therefore part of the matrimonial pot to be distributed when it comes to negotiating a financial settlement on divorce or...
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