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...
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

FOSTER CARER ALLOWANCE: London Borough of Tower Hamlets v R (X) [2013] EWCA Civ 904

Sep 29, 2018, 21:10 PM
Slug : foster-carer-allowance-london-borough-of-tower-hamlets-v-r-x-2013-ewca-civ-904
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jul 30, 2013, 07:59 AM
Article ID : 103231

(Court of Appeal, Maurice Kay, Lewison, Gloster LJJ, 24 July 2013)

The woman was a foster carer for her two nephews and niece, aged 16, 14 and 7, all of whom were damaged and difficult children. Both parents had learning difficulties: the mother had problems with drugs and alcohol and the father was schizophrenic. The children had been neglected in their care. Prior to the placement with the woman, they were placed in three different foster homes, all of which broke down due to the foster carers being unable to cope.

The local authority approached the woman to ask if she would consider caring for the children. She agreed but this involved giving up her job, moving to a larger house in a different area and becoming reliant on State benefits. Following their placement with her, the woman was found to provide an excellent standard of care and commitment to the children which would be impossible to replicate elsewhere. The children were now happy and settled.

In the Administrative court ([2013] EWHC 480 (Admin), [2013] 2 FLR 199) the woman brought judicial review proceedings challenging the local authority policy to pay family foster carers at a lower rate than unrelated foster carers. The judge held that the policy was unlawful as a matter of domestic law and the local authority was given 3 months to make their policies compliant with the guidance and the statutory framework. The local authority appealed.

The appeal was dismissed. The statutory guidance had to be complied with unless there were exceptional circumstances to justify a departure. There was no doubt that the local authority had failed to comply with the guidance by treating the woman unfairly and failing to ensure that allowances paid to related foster carers were not less than those paid to unrelated carers. It was impossible to say that the judge reached the wrong conclusion in finding the local authority had failed to provide cogent reasons for a departure from the guidance. 


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