Spotlight
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...
Spotlight
Latest articles
Disabled women more than twice as likely to experience domestic abuse
The latest data from the Office of National Statistics shows that, in the year ending March 2020, around 1 in 7 (14.3%) disabled people aged 16 to 59 years experienced any form of domestic abuse in...
The President of the Family Division endorses Public Law Working Group report
The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary has published a message from the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, in which the President endorses the publication of the President’s...
HMCTS updates online divorce services guidance
HM Courts and Tribunals Service have recently updated the online divorce services guidance with the addition of guides for deemed and dispensed service applications, alternative service...
Become the new General Editor of The Family Court Practice, the definitive word on family law and procedure
The Family Court Practice (‘The Red Book’) is widely acknowledged as the leading court reference work for all family practitioners and the judiciary. We are currently recruiting a...
The suspension, during lockdown, of prison visits for children: was it lawful?
Jake Richards, 9 Gough ChambersThis article argues that the suspension on prison visits during this period and the deficiency of measures to mitigate the impact of this on family life and to protect...
View all articles
Authors

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