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

CARE/JUDICIAL REVIEW: P v London Borough of Hackney [2007] EWHC 1365 (Admin)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:14 PM
Slug : p-v-london-borough-of-hackney-2007-ewhc-1365-admin
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jul 16, 2007, 04:22 AM
Article ID : 87485

(Queen's Bench Division; Andrew Nicol sitting as deputy judge of the High Court; 9 July 2007)

The local authority had assessed the 12 year-old autistic child's needs and found that they would be best met by the grandmother, supported by the local authority. The authority also concluded that the child should not attend the residential school favoured by the mother, but should continue to attend at the current day school. The child by his litigation friend the mother applied for judicial review of the decision claiming that the authority had failed (1) to complete an adequate assessment of needs under s 17 Children Act 1989 (2) to complete an adequate assessment of the mother as carer under several statutes (3) to complete an adequate care plan in relation to the child and/or the mother and (4) to provide arrangements for services to the child as a child in need and a disabled child and/or services to mother as carer.

The application for judicial review was dismissed: it was not unlawful for the authority to have policies so long as they were not applied rigidly and individual circumstances were taken account of, as in this case. The decision to refuse funding for a residential school place was not irrational. The authority had carefully considered the facts and addressed measures logically to them. The mother had refused the authority's offer of direct payments in respect of care services for the child under s 17 Children Act 1989, preferring that the authority provide the services directly. The authority had not behaved unlawfully in making the offer in view of the fact that there were no available carers with the appropriate experience to meet the child's needs.

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