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...
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

LOCAL AUTHORITY: R (Collins) v Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council [2008] EWHC 2551 (Admin)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:09 PM
Slug : r-collins-v-knowsley-metropolitan-borough-council-2008-ewhc-2551-admin
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Oct 29, 2008, 11:26 AM
Article ID : 87109

(Queen's Bench Division, Administrative Court; Michael Supperstone QC sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court; 29 October 2008)

The teenage girl was referred to the local authority's children and families' team because of concerns about her school attendance. The girl's stepfather had parental responsibility for her, but she did not spend much time in his care. The authority became aware that the girl was in fact living with her boyfriend's mother, and arranged a planning meeting to discuss her future. Shortly afterwards, the step-father died; after discussions with the authority the boyfriend's mother indicated that she was willing to look after the girl on a long-term basis. The boyfriend's mother then applied for fostering allowance in respect of the girl, but was refused on the basis that the girl was not a 'looked after child' for the purposes of Children Act 1989, s 22(1).

The local authority had been under a duty to provide accommodation for the child, under Children Act 1989, s 20, and had organised a placement for the child with the boyfriend's mother. The authority was therefore obliged to pay the boyfriend's mother the appropriate weekly fostering allowance.

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