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
Practical aspects to assessing competence in children
Rebecca Stevens, Partner, Royds Withy KingThis is an article regarding the practical aspects to assessing competence in children. The article explores a range of practicalities, such as meeting a...
Scrumping the crop of recent pension decisions
Rhys Taylor, 36 Family and 30 Park PlaceJonathan Galbraith, Mathieson Consulting2020 has thus far proved to be a memorable year for all the wrong reasons, but nonetheless it remains an interesting one...
Conduct in financial remedies – when is it now a relevant consideration?
Rachel Gillman, 1 GC/Family LawThis article provides an overview of all aspects of financial misconduct following the recent decision of Mostyn J in OG v AG [2020] EWFC 52, wherein all aspects of...
The treatment of RSUs/Stock Options in light of XW v XH
Peter Mitchell QC, 29 Bedford RowStock Options and Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) are frequently encountered by the Family Court when dividing property on divorce or dissolution of a Civil Partnership....
Hundreds of thousands of companies worldwide fall victims to hackers every year. Is your firm one of them?
SPONSORED CONTENT Image source: Information is beautifulYou and other lawyers and legal assistants in your firm likely have accounts on the hacked websites listed in the image above. If a hacker...
View all articles
Authors

LOCAL AUTHORITY: R (A) v Coventry City Council [2009] EWHC 34 (Admin)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:35 PM
Slug : r-a-v-coventry-city-council-2009-ewhc-34-admin
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jan 22, 2009, 04:23 AM
Article ID : 88615

(Queen's Bench Division, Administrative Court; Antony Edwards-Stuart QC sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court; 22 January 2009)

A woman already caring for the child's brother took the 15 year old child in to her home one night after the child had been thrown out of the father's home. The woman then approached the local authority, seeking financial assistance to enable her to keep up her rent payments and her council tax payments, both of which were in arrears; she wanted to prevent the child from going into care. The initial assessment, which was very late, considered that this might be a private fostering arrangement, but that, as the father could not pay, being himself in debt, social care should support the foster parent until the child was 16 and able to claim housing benefit. The only contact the foster parent had with the father was when she collected the child's child benefit book from the father; the child had no contact with the father after leaving the father's home. When the child was 16 the local authority withdrew the financial support they had been giving under Children Act 1989, s 17, even though the child was now attending college, and not entitled to claim housing benefit. The authority also refused to assess the child's needs, claiming that the arrangement had been a private fostering arrangement, either with the father, or directly with the child. The child sought judicial review of that decision, arguing that he had been, or should be treated as having been, accommodated by the authority under its s 20 duty.

The father had had no contact with the foster parent, and could not therefore have made a private arrangement with her for the child to be privately fostered. It was self evident that a 15-year-old child could not enter into a binding private fostering arrangement with an adult; the fostering arrangement must be made by parents or by the local authority. If, as in this case, a local authority allowed a prospective foster parent to believe that she would receive financial support, as opposed to fostering at her own expense, the court was entitled to conclude that the authority was exercising its functions under ss 20 and 23, not simply facilitating a private fostering arrangement. The child had been a child in need, within the local authority area, whose parent was prevented from providing suitable accommodation or care. Accommodation uncertain as to duration because not founded on any secure financial footing, such as the child's accommodation with the woman when the woman first approached the authority, was not accommodation that could be said to be suitable for a 15 year old who was a child in need. No reasonable authority could have decided anything other than that the child had been a child in need requiring accommodation under Children Act 1989, s 20.

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