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
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
Authors

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 :
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from