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
JM v RM [2021] EWHC 315 (Fam)
(Family Division, Mostyn J, 22 February 2021)Abduction – Wrongful retention – Hague Convention application – Mother decided not to return to Australia with children – COVID 19...
Re A (A Child) (Hague Convention 1980: Set Aside) [2021] EWCA Civ 194
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Moylan, Asplin LJJ, Hayden J, 23 February 2021)Abduction – Hague Convention 1980 – Return order made – Mother successfully applied to set aside due...
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...
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