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
Help separated parents ditch avoidance strategies that stop them resolving differences
The desire to avoid conflict with an ex is the primary reason that separated parents do not get to see their children.  That’s an eye-opening finding from a survey of 1,105 separated...
What is a Cohabitation Agreement, and do I need one?
Many couples, despite living together, never seek to legally formalise their living and financial arrangements.  They mistakenly believe that the concept of a ‘common law’ husband and...
Welsh Government launches consultation on amendments to adoption regulations
The Welsh Government has launched a consultation on the proposed amendments to the Adoption Agencies (Wales) Regulations 2005 and the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (Wales) Regulations 2015....
JM v RM [2021] EWHC 315 (Fam)
(Family Division, Mostyn J, 22 February 2021)Abduction – Wrongful retention – Hague Convention application – Mother decided not to return to Australia with children – COVID 19...
Re A (A Child) (Hague Convention 1980: Set Aside) [2021] EWCA Civ 194
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Moylan, Asplin LJJ, Hayden J, 23 February 2021)Abduction – Hague Convention 1980 – Return order made – Mother successfully applied to set aside due...
View all articles
Authors

LOCAL AUTHORITY: A v Leicester City Council and Hillingdon London Borough Council [2009] EWHC 2351 (Admin)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:22 PM
Slug : a-v-leicester-city-council-and-hillingdon-london-borough-council-2009-ewhc-2351-admin
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jul 30, 2009, 04:22 AM
Article ID : 86151

(Queen's Bench Division, Administrative Court; HHJ Farmer QC; 30 July 2009)

The unaccompanied asylum-seeking child was in the authority's care for 13 weeks, after which she moved, entirely of her own volition, to live with family known to her in the area of another authority. Thereafter there was a dispute as to which authority was responsible for supporting the child.

The age assessment produced by the first authority had failed to satisfy the duty to provide either a brief initial assessment or core assessment, under Children Act 1989, s 20; a full core assessment was a prerequisite for properly assessing the weight to be given to a child's wishes and the first authority had not been entitled to rely on the child's expressed wishes as decisive in the absence of a proper and rigorous assessment. The duty under s 20 endured until such an assessment had taken place, and could even survive such an assessment. Further, a local authority could not take advantage of a child's impulsive and unwise acts to absolve themselves of the s 20 duty. In this case, a prerequisite for bringing the s 20 duty to an end had been to ensure that every attempt had been made to resolve difficulties as to resourcing between the local authorities. An interim plan for provision of services should be made before a final decision or position was taken up. Both the first and the second authority had owed a concurrent duty to the child. This double duty protected the child from the consequences of arbitrary and unilateral action on the part of local authorities. The second authority should not have refused to offer support to the child, and should not have attempted to pass responsibility for her back to the first authority. It was not lawful to defer the performance of the duty of good parenting under the 1989 Act to the resolution of what was essentially a resource-led dispute.

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