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
The need for proportionality and the ‘Covid impact’
Simon Wilkinson, Parklane PlowdenThe Covid-19 pandemic has infiltrated every aspect of our lives. Within the courts and tribunals service there has been a plethora of guidance since March 2020 which...
Local authority input into private law proceedings, part II
Mani Singh Basi, Barrister, 4 Paper BuildingsLucy Logan Green, Barrister, 4 Paper BuildingThis article considers the interplay between private and public law proceedings, focusing on the law relating...
Time for change (II)
Lisa Parkinson, Family mediation trainer, co-founder and a Vice-President of the Family Mediators AssociationThe family law community needs to respond to the urgent call for change from the...
How Can I Wed Thee? – Let Me Change the Ways: the Law Commission’s Consultation Paper on ‘Weddings’ Law (2020)
Professor Chris Barton, A Vice-President of the Family Mediators Association, Academic Door Tenant, Regent Chambers, Stoke-on-TrentThis article considers the Paper's 91 Consultation Questions...
Consultation on the proposed transfer of the assessment of all civil legal aid bills of costs to the Legal Aid Agency
The Ministry of Justice has launched a consultation on the proposed transfer from Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service to the Legal Aid Agency of the assessment of all civil legal aid bills of...
View all articles
Authors

LOCAL AUTHORITY: R (W) v North Lincolnshire Council [2008] EWHC 2299 (Admin)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:11 PM
Slug : r-w-v-north-lincolnshire-council-2008-ewhc-2299-admin
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jul 30, 2008, 04:22 AM
Article ID : 87281

(Queen's Bench Division, Administrative Court; HHJ Mackie QC; 30 July 2008)

A child whose parents would not or could not look after him, who had been dependent in the past on the local authority and was now once again dependent on their care, was an almost classic fit for Children Act 1989, s 20. The local authority' refusal to accommodate the child under s 20, based on its conclusion that accommodation could be provided under s 17, not least because the child had expressed a wish not to be in care, was a failure to acknowledge the duty the authority owed the child under s 20. The difficulties that the claimant presented were to some extent an illustration of why more extensive, rather than less extensive, provisions were desirable.

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