In R(C) v Nottingham City Council [2010] EWCA Civ 790 (available through the Chief’s mystical powers and Lawtel [and now also on Read the full post
Tag Archive for 'children'
EA v GA & Westminster City Council & Salford City Council [2010] EWCA Civ 586 [Not on Bailii, transcript on Lawtel]
This is a little outside our usual grounds, but as it concerns the Court’s power to direct Local Authorities to accommodate a child and parent, and has interplay with S.20 Children Act 1989, it is worth a note.
The issue in this appeal was the extent of the Court’s powers to order a Local Authority to provide accommodation under Section 5 Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985.
EA, the mother, had removed J and K, the children and fled from Ireland to, first, Salford. She was Nigerian and on … Read the full post
The DWP has issued guidance to decision-makers on benefit entitlement in the wake of Ibrahim and Teixeira (our report here) in the European Court, for when there is a likely Article 12 Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 derived right for a child or children to remain to complete education. A copy of the guidance can be found here [link to PDF. Thanks to Disability Alliance]. The guidance is interesting not just for benefit entitlement, but it is a fair guess that housing authorities would follow a similar line.
A couple of things strike me about the guidance. One is the insistence that the Claimant must be primary carer AND … Read the full post
As we all know, William Gladstone walked the streets of London, even while Prime Minister (1868–74, 1880–85, 1886 and 1892–94), seeking out fallen women to rescue, whether they wanted to be rescued or not.
What Gladstone did when he accosted a prostitute was to offer her a place to sleep, protection from any bully or “mackerel” who might be exploiting her, and an opportunity to think over the following handsome proposition: If she wished to do so, on due consideration, she could go to the home or hostel Gladstone helped to maintain, to stay there, eating three square meals a day and receiving any medical attention she might need, until
There were lots of good intentions behind the SI making clear that 16/17 year olds are in priority need (The Homelessness (Priority Need for Accommodation) (England) Order 2002 (SI 2002 /2051)). But as a few have pointed out in recent years, there might be consequences because of the capacity requirements of property law. Well, in Alexander-David v LB Hammersmith & Fulham, those good intentions (and property law) have bitten back.
Ms Alexander-David, a 16 year old who was also pregnant, was provided with accommodation by Hammersmith and Fulham LBC under s 193(2). They granted and she took a standard form non-secure tenancy agreement terminable by four weeks notice … Read the full post
The House of Lords Opinions in Holmes-Moorhouse v LB Richmond upon Thames [2009] UKHL 7 were handed down today. This concerned whether a shared residence order under s.8 Children Act 1989 meant that a child was ‘reasonably expected’ to be resident with both parents following a divorce, for the purposes of s.189(1)(b) Housing Act 1996, so as to confer priority need in a homeless application.
The Court of Appeal said that, in certain circumstances, it might well mean just that, and that the Local Authority should intervene in the Children Act proceedings if it wished to argue the point. The House of Lords disagrees, and adds some ‘helpful’ observations…… Read the full post
Recent Comments