Latest articles
Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v DV (A Child) [2021] EWHC 1037 (Fam)
(Family Division, Cohen J, 19 April 2021)Medical Treatment – 17-year-old had form of bone cancer and required surgery For comprehensive, judicially approved coverage of every important...
Domestic Abuse Bill
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsAfter years of development the Domestic Abuse Bill returned to the House of Lords in the UK on the 8th March 2021 to complete its report stage, one of the final...
Coercive control and children’s welfare in Re H-N and Others
When families come to strife, arrangements must be made for the future care of any children. In some circumstances, this means an application to the courts. These ‘private law orders’ can...
Profession: Expert Witness
The value of a family business or business interest is treated as an asset and therefore part of the matrimonial pot to be distributed when it comes to negotiating a financial settlement on divorce or...
How does a jointly held property pass on death?
When meeting with clients to discuss their succession planning, many cannot recall whether their property is held jointly as joint tenants or jointly as tenants in common. The distinction is that with...
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