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
The need for proportionality and the ‘Covid impact’
Simon Wilkinson, Parklane PlowdenThe Covid-19 pandemic has infiltrated every aspect of our lives. Within the courts and tribunals service there has been a plethora of guidance since March 2020 which...
Local authority input into private law proceedings, part II
Mani Singh Basi, Barrister, 4 Paper BuildingsLucy Logan Green, Barrister, 4 Paper BuildingThis article considers the interplay between private and public law proceedings, focusing on the law relating...
Time for change (II)
Lisa Parkinson, Family mediation trainer, co-founder and a Vice-President of the Family Mediators AssociationThe family law community needs to respond to the urgent call for change from the...
How Can I Wed Thee? – Let Me Change the Ways: the Law Commission’s Consultation Paper on ‘Weddings’ Law (2020)
Professor Chris Barton, A Vice-President of the Family Mediators Association, Academic Door Tenant, Regent Chambers, Stoke-on-TrentThis article considers the Paper's 91 Consultation Questions...
Consultation on the proposed transfer of the assessment of all civil legal aid bills of costs to the Legal Aid Agency
The Ministry of Justice has launched a consultation on the proposed transfer from Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service to the Legal Aid Agency of the assessment of all civil legal aid bills of...
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