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...
Latest articles
Help separated parents ditch avoidance strategies that stop them resolving differences
The desire to avoid conflict with an ex is the primary reason that separated parents do not get to see their children.  That’s an eye-opening finding from a survey of 1,105 separated...
What is a Cohabitation Agreement, and do I need one?
Many couples, despite living together, never seek to legally formalise their living and financial arrangements.  They mistakenly believe that the concept of a ‘common law’ husband and...
Welsh Government launches consultation on amendments to adoption regulations
The Welsh Government has launched a consultation on the proposed amendments to the Adoption Agencies (Wales) Regulations 2005 and the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (Wales) Regulations 2015....
JM v RM [2021] EWHC 315 (Fam)
(Family Division, Mostyn J, 22 February 2021)Abduction – Wrongful retention – Hague Convention application – Mother decided not to return to Australia with children – COVID 19...
Re A (A Child) (Hague Convention 1980: Set Aside) [2021] EWCA Civ 194
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Moylan, Asplin LJJ, Hayden J, 23 February 2021)Abduction – Hague Convention 1980 – Return order made – Mother successfully applied to set aside due...
View all articles

LOCAL AUTHORITY: R (JL) v Islington London Borough Council [2009] EWHC 458 (Admin)

Sep 29, 2018, 16:13 PM
Slug : r-jl-v-islington-london-borough-council-2009-ewhc-458-admin
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Mar 12, 2009, 04:21 AM
Article ID : 85081

(Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court); Black J; 12 March 2009)

The child had a severe expressive and receptive language and communication disorder and suffered from a severe form of autism. The mother suffered from fibromyalgia and depression. The core assessment identified an average of 24 hours a week support for the family from the local authority. Some years later the authority introduced eligibility criteria for disabled children. After a 'new eligibility criteria form' had been filled in, a care plan was created under which the support provided to the family was cut by about half. The 'chosen plan' for the child was said to be respite care of 12 hours a week, which was said to amount to 'voluntary accommodation' under Children Act 1989, s 20. After discussions a slight increase in the support was agreed, but nonetheless the mother sought judicial review of the eligibility criteria.

Eligibility criteria had no role to play in relation to a local authority's duty under Children Act 1989, s 20(1). The s 20(1) duty was an absolute duty; there was a contrast between s 20(1) and ss 17 and 20(4), in that the latter gave rise to powers not duties. Eligibility criteria could, in principle be used, in relation to ss 17 and 20(4), provided that the use of the criteria did not conflict in an individual case with the fulfilment of an authority's general responsibilities to children under the Act. The respite care aspect of the support package had not, in any event, been provided under s 20(1); no duty arose under that section. Eligibility criteria could not be used to determine whether a particular child was within the pool of people for whom, having regard to the question of resources, the local authority might be prepared to provide benefits under Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, s 2. The criteria could not be used to limit provision to an individual once the authority had determined that arrangements from the list in s 2 were needed to meet the needs of that individual. Further, the eligibility criteria should have been applied after completing a core assessment and were not a substitute for a core assessment. The use of eligibility criteria in determining provision for children was a very complex area. Comprehensive and practical guidance should be drawn up to assist authorities.

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