The claimant had had foster care of two children. They were with temporary respite placements when the respondent decided to place in a different foster setting but without consulting the claimant or otherwise giving him notice.
Held: (ex tempore) The request was granted.
There was no general duty at common law to consult with a foster carer, nor any particular mention of foster carers in the lists created in section 22(4) of the 1989 Act: ‘however, a foster parent, being a person, is someone who may, on the facts and in the circumstances of a particular case, fall within the sub paragraph (d). In most cases, and certainly this case, the foster parent who has been, or is, currently actively involved in the life of a child is obviously somebody in relation to whom the local authority needs at least to pause and consider whether he might be a person whose wishes and feelings the authority should consider to be relevant regarding the matter to be decided.’
Nor was there here any emergency to justify urgent action. Given the claimant’s non-cooperation with the Council, their decision to proceed may be understandable, but they had a duty to consult and did not do so: ‘if they had given consideration to the question of consultation with the claimant, this local authority could not have reasonably considered, and no local authority could reasonably have considered, that his wishes and feelings were other than relevant regarding the matter to be decided.’
 1 FLR 945,  Fam Law 137,  EWHC 2545 (Admin)
Children Act 1989 22(4)
See Also – Bewry v Reed Elseveir (UK) Ltd and Another QBD 10-Oct-2013
The claimant had begin proceedings against the defendant legal publishers, saying that their summary of a cash had brought was defamatory. He now sought leave to extend the limitation period for his claim, and the defendants argued that, given the . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 28 February 2021; Ref: scu.425597