R (J) v Caerphilly County Borough Council
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 12 April 2005 |
| Neutral Citation | [2005] EWHC 586 (Admin) |
| Date | 12 April 2005 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Before Mr Justice Munby
Children - care order - child's personal adviser must not be involved in long-term care plan
It was important that the person apppointed as personal adviser to a child in care was not to be involved in the statutory assessment of the child or in the preparation of the statutory plan for his future welfare: the pathway plan.
Mr Justice Munby so stated in the Queen's Bench Division, when granting declarations sought on the application for judicial review by the claimant, J, that the defendant local authority, Caerphilly County Borough Council, had, inter alia, failed to assess his needs, and requiring the defendant to produce a proper assessment and pathway plan as obliged to do under the Children Act 1989, as amended by the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000 and the Children (Leaving Care) (Wales) Regulations (SI 2001 No 2189 (W151)) and to appoint a personal adviser who was independent of the claimant's social worker.
Mr Ian Wise for J; Mr Rhodri Williams for the council.
MR JUSTICE MUNBY said that the defendant local authority had parental responsibility having been granted a full care order in September 2002 for J, born in 1987, who had special needs in relation to reading and numeracy.
J had been sentenced to detention and training orders totalling a year in July 2004 and had been released in January 2005. He was suffering from many of the deeply disturbing constellation of disadvantages and difficulties which afflicted so many children in young offender institutions.
It was common ground that he was both a "looked after" child within the meaning of section 22(1) of the 1989 Act, as amended, and also an "eligible" child under paragraph 19B(2) of Schedule 2 to the 1989 Act and regulation 3(1) of the 2001 Regulations so that, under paragraph 19C of Schedule 2, as inserted by the 2000 Act, the local authority was obliged to arrange for him to have a personal adviser.
The claimant submitted, inter alia, that it had been wrong in principle to appoint a member of the local authority's own staff to act as personal adviser and that that role had been misunderstood, in particular in relation to the preparation of the pathway plan.
His Lordship...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R (G) v Nottingham City Council - and - Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust
...to do so.” 30 I had occasion to consider the statutory scheme in some detail in R (J) v Caerphilly County Borough Council [2005] EWHC 586 (Admin), [2005] 2 FLR 860, a case in which I handed down judgment on 2 April 2005. (Nothing turns on the fact that that was a case under the correspondi......
-
R (TN (Afghanistan)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department MA (Afghanistan) v Same
...... Background . 2 In 1999 the EU Council of Ministers resolved to work towards a Common European Asylum System. ......
-
R (VC and Others) and Another v Newcastle City Council Secretary of State for the Home Department (Interested Party)
...referred us in this connection to cases such as R (AB and SB) v Nottingham CC [2001] EWHC Admin 235, (2001) 4 CCLR 295, R (J) v Caerphilly County Borough Council [2005] EWHC 586 (Admin), [2005] 2 FLR 860, R (G) v Nottingham City Council and Nottingham University Hospitals [2008] EWHC 400 (......
-
R (on the application of FL) v Lambeth London Borough Council
...234, [2007] LGR 619; rvsg [2006] EWHC 2354 (Admin), [2006] All ER (D) 31 (Sep). R (on the application of J) v Caerphilly County BC [2005] EWHC 586 (Admin), [2005] 2 FCR 153, [2005] 2 FLR R (on the application of L) v Nottinghamshire CC [2007] EWHC 2364 (Admin), [2007] All ER (D) 158 (Sep). ......