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
Queer(y)ing consummation: an empirical reflection on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 and the role of consummation
Alexander Maine, Lecturer in Law, Leicester Law School, University of LeicesterKeywords: Consummation – adultery – marriage – empirical research – LGBTQConsummation and...
A v A (Return Without Taking Parent) [2021] EWHC 1439 (Fam)
(Family Division, MacDonald J, 18 May 2021)Abduction – Application for return order under Hague Convention 1980 - Art 13(b) defence – Whether mother’s allegations against the father...
Domestic Abuse Toolkit for Employers
The Insurance Charities have released an update to the Domestic Abuse Toolkit for Employers.Employers have a duty of care and a legal responsibility to provide a safe and effective work...
Two-week rapid consultation launched on remote, hybrid and in-person family hearings
The President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, has announced the launch of a two-week rapid consultation on remote, hybrid and in-person hearings in the family justice system and the...
Pension sharing orders: Finch v Baker
The Court of Appeal judgment in Finch v Baker [2021] EWCA Civ 72 was released on 28 January 2021. The judgment provides some useful guidance on not being able to get what are essentially...
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