Lawyers for a severely disabled man who had a series of respite care placements in childhood had argued that a duty to consider care proceedings arose each time respite care was provided by his council and to consider whether it was appropriate to return the child to the parents each time respite ended.
In dismissing an appeal in YXA v Wolverhampton City Council, the Honourable Justice Stacey distinguished the duty of care that arises after a full care order is made - where a local authority becomes the statutory parent - and the different position of a child receiving temporary and intermittent care under section 20 of the Children’s Act 1989 with the consent of the child’s parents and where the parents retain exclusive parental responsibility.
Register Now to Continue Reading
Thank you for visiting Children & Young People Now and making use of our archive of more than 60,000 expert features, topics hubs, case studies and policy updates. Why not register today and enjoy the following great benefits:
What's Included
-
Free access to 4 subscriber-only articles per month
-
Email newsletter providing advice and guidance across the sector
Already have an account? Sign in here
