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
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...
New complaints handling guide offers advice to local authorities
The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman is today issuing new guidance on effective complaint handling for local authorities.Based on previous documents, the new guide offers practical,...
EU laws continue until at least 2038 and beyond
The UK left the EU on 31 January 2020.  But in matters of law it fully leaves on 31 December 2020.  But EU laws will continue to apply, and be applied, in the English family courts from 1...
Family Law Awards winners announced in virtual awards ceremony
The winners of the Family Law Awards 2020 were announced at 4pm during a much-anticipated virtual awards ceremony. Over the past ten years, the Family Law Awards has recognised the leading players in...
Behaviour-based divorces still merit close consideration
Some recent cases illustrate the evidential and procedural issues involved in dealing with proofs on the merits of divorce, which are worth considering even though most cases may conclude on a...
View all articles

CARE/LOCAL AUTHORITY: R (G) v Nottingham City Council and Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust [2008] EWHC 400 (Admin)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:19 PM
Slug : r-g-v-nottingham-city-council-and-nottingham-university-hospitals-nhs-trust-2008-ewhc-400-admin
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Mar 5, 2008, 04:23 AM
Article ID : 89245

(Queen's Bench Division, Administrative Court; Munby J; 5 March 2008)

The mother had been unlawfully separated from the baby shortly after birth. The mother was herself an eligible child in the process of challenging the pathway plan prepared for her by the local authority. The baby was restored to the mother, but later removed lawfully under an interim care order. The mother's judicial review proceedings were heard at the same time as an issue in the care proceedings. Agreement was reached between all parties as to the orders to be made, including two declarations that the local authority had acted unlawfully.

The court could never grant declarations by consent; when making a declaration the court had to be satisfied on the facts and as a matter of law that the declaration was one that ought properly to be made. A mother could not be said to have given her consent to the removal of her baby merely because, knowing of a local authority plan to remove the child, she did not object to it, and because, at the moment of separation, she did not resist. The statutory scheme laid down in Children Act 1989, ss 23A-23C and Sch 2, and in Children (Leaving Care) (England) Regulations 2001 SI 2001/2874, envisaged two quite separate stages, first, the assessment, culminating in the preparation of a written record and, secondly, the preparation of a pathway plan. The assessment of needs went beyond mere identification of needs, it involved analysis and evaluation of the nature, extent and severity of the child's needs, a process which had to go far enough to enable a pathway plan to be prepared, setting out, in sufficiently precise detail, the 'manner in which' those needs were to be met. There had been a serious failure by the authority to comply with its statutory duties: the entire process should have been embarked upon earlier; it did not appear that there had ever been a proper assessment; and not only had the pathway plan lacked specificity, the mother's personal adviser had been involved in its preparation, which was impermissible. The local authority had undertaken to conduct an urgent review of the arrangements for its personal advisers to ensure that they did not have a foot in both camps in this way in future.

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