Spotlight
Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'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
Resolution issues Brexit notes for family lawyers ahead of IP completion day
Family lawyer organisation, Resolution, has issued two joint notes to assist family lawyers in England and Wales ahead of the end of the Brexit transition/implementation period at 11 pm on 31 December...
Online filing is real-time on New Year's Eve: practice direction change to accommodate EU withdrawal arrangements
I have heard that there will be an amendment to the relevant practice directions to provide that online applications received on New Year’s Eve after 4:30 PM and before 11:00 PM will count as...
Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust v AB
The issue in this case concerned AB’s capacity to make specific decisions about treatment relating to her anorexia nervosa. She was 28 years old and had suffered with anorexia since the age of...
EU laws continue until at least 2038 and beyond
The UK left the EU on 31 January 2020.  But in matters of law it fully leaves on 31 December 2020.  But EU laws will continue to apply, and be applied, in the English family courts from 1...
Remote hearings in family proceedings – how is justice perceived?
The motion for the recent Kingsley Napley debate:  “This House believes remote hearings are not remotely fair” was carried with a fairly balanced 56% in favour and 44% against....
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