What are the prospects when you are approached by a child client who should have been accommodated under section 20 Children Act 1989, but it is too late to secure 13 weeks accommodation before his or her 18th birthday? See R(A) v Enfield LBC [2016] EWHC 567 (Admin) for a good example of restorative justice, and confirmation that in some cases it will be appropriate for the court to grant declaratory relief.
| less than a minute read
The should-have-been former relevant child...
" I can not foresee any circumstances where it would be fair to exclude C from consideration of the entire range of services that would be open to her under s.35 Children (Living Care) Act 2000. This is not to say, of course, that her entitlement to services should necessarily be regarded as automatic, it is inextricably linked to the identification of her welfare requirements. In this respect therefore she is to be regarded 'as if she were a former relevant child', to adopt the distinction drawn by Christopher Clarke LJ (see para 53 above). It is plainly desirable for C to be supported to take decisions for herself which are both better informed and rooted in a more reflective analysis. It is perhaps also important to note that there may very well be a significant benefit to wider society."
/Passle/5b3f2cb9780ebf0410d034b3/MediaLibrary/Images/2024-04-22-16-04-34-775-66268a92d100dba38ac0696e.jpg)
/Passle/5b3f2cb9780ebf0410d034b3/SearchServiceImages/2024-04-02-09-50-52-105-660bd4fc27309ceed5b1ce58.jpg)
![‘Failure to remove’ claims and Article 3: SZR v Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council [2024] EWHC 598 (QB)](https://images.passle.net/455x256/Passle/5b3f2cb9780ebf0410d034b3/DefaultShareImages/2021-11-26-14-14-19-263-61a0ebbb49b2040a10a1dd01.png)