View source for Re CK: Derby CC v BA (2021) EWHC 2931 (Fam)

{{Case
|Date=2021/11/03
|NCN=[2021] EWHC 2931 (Fam)
|ICLR=[2021] WLR(D) 560
|ICLR ID=2021004895
|Court=High Court (Family Division)
|Judges=MacDonald
|Parties=Derby City Council, BA, OM, CK, Secretary of State for Education, Ofsted, Council of the City of York, TJ, VJ, FJ, Plymouth City Council, TV, MJ, QV
|Cites=Tameside MBC v AM (2021) EWHC 2472 (Fam)
|Sentence=Relevance of DOL Practice Guidance
|Summary="[W]hilst accepting that an unwillingness or inability on the part of a placement to comply with the terms of the President’s Practice Guidance is a factor that informs the overall best interests evaluation on an application under the inherent jurisdiction, and that each case will turn on its own facts, I am satisfied that that the court should not ''ordinarily'' countenance the exercise the inherent jurisdiction where an unregistered placement makes clear that it will not or cannot comply with the requirement of the Practice Guidance to apply expeditiously for registration as mandated by law."
|Detail===Case title==
On BAILII as Derby CC v CK & Ors (Compliance with DOL Practice Guidance)
|Subject=Deprivation of liberty - children,Inherent jurisdiction cases
|News=Yes
|RSS pubdate=2021/11/04 09:45:53 PM
}}