header-logo header-logo

24 May 2007 / Esther Pounder
Issue: 7274 / Categories: Features , Child law
printer mail-detail

Child Law Update

Private fostering v CA 1989, s 20(1)

In D v Southwark London Borough Council [2007] EWCA Civ 182, [2007] All ER (D) 110 (Mar) the local authority appealed against the decision of Mr Justice Lloyd Jones when, following an application for judicial review, he found that a child (S) had been looked after by the London Borough of Southwark pursuant to its statutory powers and duties under Pt III of the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989) and that, accordingly, it was obliged to pay her carer (D) for her accommodation and maintenance.

During January 2004, S told staff at her school that her father had been violent towards her and that she did not wish to remain his care. Southwark social services was contacted and later the same day met with S and her father separately. S confirmed that she wished to go and live with D, her father’s former partner.

D was contacted by the local authority and asked whether she would care for S. D agreed. She was told at the time

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Martin Livingston joins Ogier in Cayman to strengthen regulatory support

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan announces 47 summer promotions across UK offices

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll