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
No right (as yet) to be married legally in a humanist ceremony: R (on the application of Harrison and others) v Secretary of State for Justice [2020] EWHC 2096 (Admin)
Mary Welstead, CAP Fellow, Harvard Law School, Visiting Professor in Family Law, University of BuckinghamIn July 2020, six humanist couples brought an application for judicial review on the...
Controlling and coercive behaviour is gender and colour blind but how are courts meeting the challenge to protect victims
Maryam Syed, 7BRExamining the most recent caselaw in both family and criminal law jurisdictions this article discusses the prominent and still newly emerging issue of controlling and coercive domestic...
Roma families face disadvantage in child protection proceedings
Mary Marvel, Law for LifeWe have all become familiar with the discussion about structural racism in the UK, thanks to the excellent work of the Black Lives Matter movement. But it is less recognised...
The ‘Bank of Mum and Dad’ – obligations and scope for change
Helen Brander, Pump Court ChambersQuite unusually, two judgments of the High Court in 2020 have considered financial provision for adult children and when and how applications can be made. They come...
Emotional harm and interim removal: how psychological thinking can support practice
Dr Ben Laskey ClinPsyD, AFBPS, Consultant Clinical Psychologist, The Psychology PartnershipGeorge Butler, Barrister at Law, 42 Bedford Row ChambersThe family courts are full of cases involving...
View all articles

LOCAL AUTHORITY: R (LH) v Lambeth London Borough Council [2006] EWHC 1190 (Admin)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:05 PM
Slug : r-lh-v-lambeth-london-borough-council-2006-ewhc-1190-admin
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : May 25, 2006, 11:00 AM
Article ID : 85757

(Queens Bench Division (Admin); Crane J; 25 May 2006)

The 10-year old child had autism, moderate learning difficulties, severe epilepsy and asthma and chronic long-term constipation. There were significant behavioural difficulties, and the mother alerted the local authority to her own inability to cope with the growing child. She requested an assessment under the Children Act 1989, an assessment of her own needs as carer, completion of the special educational needs review process and urgent consideration of a residential placement. A draft core assessment and a long-term care plan were produced, both recommending that the child be educated at a boarding school. However, after further consideration, the authority refused to fund such a placement, concluding that a residential placement was not necessary, and that strategies should be put in place to assist the family. The core assessment and long-term care plan were revised accordingly. The mother sought judicial review of the authority's decision.

The new core assessment was open to criticisms for not concentrating on the child's needs, as distinct from the production of a care plan in the light of those needs. There was also a failure to identify clearly the needs to be met in the case of the carer's assessment, which were the mother's needs. The conclusion that a so-called package of support, much of which remained to be identified, was to be preferred to a residential placement was seriously flawed and, particularly in the light of a year of fitful attention to the central problem, irrational. The local authority was in breach of its assessment obligations.

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