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
No fault divorce - the end of the blame game
The Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020, which passed into law on 25 June 2020, will introduce "no fault" divorce in England and Wales for the first time. This article looks at what it...
New Cafcass guidance on working with children during COVID-19
The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass) has published guidance on working with children during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. The guidance sets out arrangements for...
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....
Online event: An update on recovery in the civil, family courts & tribunals
HM Courts and Tribunals Service has announced that it is holding an online event to discuss its recovery plan for the civil, family courts and tribunals, which was published on 9 November 2020...
HM Courts & Tribunals Service confirms 2020 Christmas and new year closure dates
HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has confirmed the dates over the Christmas and new year period in which Crown Courts, magistrates’ courts,...
View all articles
Authors

LOCAL AUTHORITY: R (O) v East Riding of Yorkshire County Council [2010] EWHC 489 (Admin)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:49 PM
Slug : local-authority-r-o-v-east-riding-of-yorkshire-county-council-2010-ewhc-489-admin
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Mar 11, 2010, 11:05 AM
Article ID : 90795

(Queen's Bench Division, Administrative Court; Cranston J; 11 March 2010)

A looked after child was placed by the Local Authority at a special residential school. Whether the residential placement meant that the child was no longer 'looked after' within Children Act 1989, s 20. The child had special educational needs, including severe autism and ADHD. The parents were unable to cope once child became older, complaining of his violence and obsession with fire. The child then became 'looked after child' because of respite care provided by the Authority.

The residential school was available up to 52 weeks of year, but the family only used it during term weeks with the child returning for weekends and holidays. The child was no longer a looked after child, as no longer provided with respite care. Issue as to the definition of looked after child in the Children Act, which was provision of accommodation pursuant to social services functions. The social services functions were not covered by the provision of accommodation as result of the statement of Special Educational Needs.

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