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...
Latest articles
One in four family lawyers contemplates leaving the profession, Resolution reveals
A quarter of family justice professionals are on the verge of quitting the profession as the toll of lockdown on their mental health becomes clear, the family law group Resolution revealed today,...
Family Law Awards adds a Wellbeing Award - enter now
This past year has been different for everyone, but family law professionals working on the front line of family justice have faced a more challenging, stressful and demanding time than most. To...
Pension sharing orders: Finch v Baker
The Court of Appeal judgment in Finch v Baker [2021] EWCA Civ 72 was released on 28 January 2021. The judgment provides some useful guidance on not being able to get what are essentially...
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...
Misogyny as a hate crime – what it means and why it’s needed
In recent weeks, 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...
View all articles

Accommodating Children in Need: R (M) v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council [2008] CFLQ 522

Sep 29, 2018, 17:51 PM
Slug : accommodating-children-in-need-r-m-v-hammersmith-and-fulham-london-borough-council-2008-cflq-522
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Sep 16, 2011, 05:45 AM
Article ID : 95721

In R (M) v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council the House of Lords held that a local authority housing department which purported to provide accommodation to a 17 year old homeless young woman under section 188 of the Housing Act 1996, and failed to refer her to the children's services department to assess whether a duty to accommodate her was owed under section 20 of the Children Act 1989, had acted lawfully. This meant that the young woman did not become a 'looked after' child pursuant to section 22 of the Children Act 1989 and thus was not entitled to the duties which the local authority owes to children leaving their care. This commentary explores the reasoning of the House of Lords decision and considers whether an alternative outcome was possible, and examines in particular the relationship between housing departments/authorities and children's services departments/authorities. As M spent time in a custodial institution following a criminal conviction, the commentary also considers the duties of local authorities to children who have been accommodated by the state following their involvement with the criminal justice system.

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