Spotlight
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
Eight things you need to know: Personal Injury damages in divorce cases
The “pre-acquired” or “non-matrimonial” argument is one which has taken up much commentary in family law circles over recent years.  However, the conundrum can be even...
Will government vouchers prove a game-changer for family mediation?
Analysis of data to evaluate the government’s £500 family mediation voucher scheme is in full swing. It’s not yet complete but, as the initiative nears an end, the signs appear...
Misogyny as a hate crime – what it means and why it’s needed
Recently, the government announced that it will instruct all police forces across the UK to start recording crimes motivated by sex or gender on an experimental basis- effectively making misogyny a...
Guidance on allocation and gatekeeping for public children proceedings to remain in place
On 5 June 2020, the President of the Family Division made two amendments to his Guidance on Allocation and Gatekeeping for Care, Supervision and other Proceedings under Part IV of the Children...
Key challenges and the role of the family advisor in facilitating a successful succession plan
Kelly Noel-Smith, Private Client Partner, Forsters LLPRosie Schumm, Family Partner, Forsters LLPAnna Ferster, Family Associate, Forsters LLPHow best to pass on wealth to the next generation is a...
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