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
Disabled women more than twice as likely to experience domestic abuse
The latest data from the Office of National Statistics shows that, in the year ending March 2020, around 1 in 7 (14.3%) disabled people aged 16 to 59 years experienced any form of domestic abuse in...
The President of the Family Division endorses Public Law Working Group report
The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary has published a message from the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, in which the President endorses the publication of the President’s...
HMCTS updates online divorce services guidance
HM Courts and Tribunals Service have recently updated the online divorce services guidance with the addition of guides for deemed and dispensed service applications, alternative service...
Become the new General Editor of The Family Court Practice, the definitive word on family law and procedure
The Family Court Practice (‘The Red Book’) is widely acknowledged as the leading court reference work for all family practitioners and the judiciary. We are currently recruiting a...
The suspension, during lockdown, of prison visits for children: was it lawful?
Jake Richards, 9 Gough ChambersThis article argues that the suspension on prison visits during this period and the deficiency of measures to mitigate the impact of this on family life and to protect...
View all articles
Authors

SPECIAL GUARDIANSHIP: B v Lewisham Borough Council [2008] EWHC 738 (Admin)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:10 PM
Slug : b-v-lewisham-borough-council-2008-ewhc-738-admin
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Apr 23, 2008, 04:22 AM
Article ID : 87175

(Family Division; Black J; 17 April 2008)

A local authority scheme for providing financial support to special guardians, linked to the payments made to adopters was unlawful. The Special Guardianship Guidance produced by the DFES provided that 'In determining the amount of any ongoing financial support, the local authority should have regard to the amount of fostering allowance which would have been payable if the child were fostered.' The scheme devised by the local authority was so divorced from their fostering allowance rates, which were much higher than their payments to adopters, as to suggest that whatever regard had been given to the fostering allowances it had been allowed to have absolutely no impact on the calculations that followed, except as a ceiling to the special guardianship payments. While the Guidance did not have statutory force, the local authority had a duty substantially to follow it. The intention of the special guardianship legislation had been to make financial support available to special guardians to ensure that financial obstacles did not prevent people from taking on the role. A local authority was not free to devise a scheme that failed to do that, or that dictated that some types of placement for a child carried a significant financial disadvantage in comparison with others, or, worse, would impose such a financial strain on the carer that they would be forced to choose another type of placement.

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