Latest articles
UK Immigration Rough Sleeper Rule
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsThe UK government has recently introduced a controversial new set of rules that aim to make rough sleeping grounds for refusal or cancellation of a migrant’s...
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...
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