I was thinking it was about time I posted on a recent legal judgment. And so I was just sitting down to type a post about the case of R (on the application of G) (FC) (Appellant) v London Borough of Southwark (Respondents)  UKHL 26 when I saw that Nearly Legal has beaten me to it. In the circumstances I can’t do better than refer you to his excellent post on this case, which clarifies a point which the House of Lords was evidently surpised to find was ever in doubt, namely that where a child requires accomodation so as to fall within s20 a Local Authority can’t just pass the buck to the Housing Authority and avoid all the follow on duties that arise from a child being ‘looked after’.
…to keep all the snowed-in out there occupied (if you aren’t out hurtling down a hill on a bin lid that is). I don’t have time today to chase up all these items but thought some of you might be interested…
House of Lords Judgment in Holmes-Moorhouse v LB Richmond. See Family Lore and Nearly Legal who have beaten me to it. This as I understand it basically says you can’t force a LA to treat both parents as priority need for housing by using a shared residence order as a device. Boo.
The long awaited (and long) Court of Appeal Judgment in A (A Child) concerning overseas adoption. 33 pages. Boo.
These latter two are obviously important as they have landed in my inbox today sent to all FLBA members at the request of The Pres (not Obama, Pres of the Family Division). Now I just need to find time to read them.
For those of you who liked the snowman gag and who think the above is all a bit heavy for a Friday check out today’s newsbiscuit.