Local authority duties to children

Local authority duties towards children looked after by them

A child who is either subject to a care order (including an interim care order), or provided with accommodation by the local authority under section 20 of the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989), is a ‘looked after’ child. A local authority has two main duties to any child who is looked after:

  1. to safeguard and promote the child’s welfare, and

  2. to make such services available for children as are reasonable in the child’s case

If a child is going to become looked after, whether under a voluntary arrangement or otherwise (or if not practicable, within ten days of becoming looked after), the local authority must prepare a care plan.

A local authority has to provide all children looked after by them with accommodation and maintain them as is necessary, and there is an order of precedence as to where a child should live.

See Practice Note: Local authority duties towards children looked after by them.

Duty to provide advice and assistance for certain children and young persons

Certain children

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Family News

Monumental Supreme Court decision on matrimonialisation and sharing principle (Standish v Standish)

Family analysis: The Supreme Court’s much-anticipated judgment confirms unequivocally that the sharing principle does not apply to non-matrimonial property. Sharing of matrimonial property will usually be 50:50, though there may be a departure from equal division where justified. Non-matrimonial property typically has either a pre-marital origin, or, where it is received during the currency of the marriage, an external source (eg an inheritance). Title to an asset is expressly not determinative as to whether that asset is or is not matrimonial. Though non-matrimonial property may become matrimonial (ie ‘matrimonialisation’) this will depend on how the parties have been dealing with the asset and whether, over time, they have been treating that asset as shared between them. The concept of matrimonialisation is to be applied neither ‘widely’ nor ‘narrowly’ (contrary to what the Court of Appeal had held)—again, the enquiry should focus on how the parties have dealt with the asset. Where an asset is transferred from one spouse to another with the intention to save tax (as had occurred in the case), this will not normally show that the asset is being treated as shared. The Supreme Court ultimately upheld the decision to dismiss the wife’s appeal, though it did not wholly agree with the Court of Appeal’s reasoning. Pursuant to that decision (made on the sharing basis) the wife would be provided with circa £25m of the total assets figure of circa £132.6m, being half of the matrimonial assets figure of £50.48m. David Wilkinson, solicitor at Slater Heelis, considers the judgment.

View Family by content type :

Popular documents