A London Local Authority v KB & LB

A London Local Authority v KB & LB

AB dishonestly misused Direct Payments intended for KB's care, diverting funds to herself and GH, but this did not facilitate the rape of KB by GH, who was a family member with access regardless of payment arrangements. There was no evidence that AB, CD, or EF knew or should have known of the risk of sexual assault, nor that they colluded to conceal the pregnancy or prevent termination. AB ought to have sought medical attention for KB by late June 2020, but there is no proof she knew or should have known KB was pregnant before 30 July 2020. The family did not abuse positions of trust regarding the LPA, but AB acted dishonestly by using KB's name in financial documents. Risks to LB and KB...

Parties
Applicant: A London Local Authority; First Respondent: KB (by her litigation friend, the Official Solicitor); Second Respondent: LB (a Child by his Children’s Guardian); First Intervenor: GH; Second Intervenor: AB; Third Intervenor: CD; Fourth Intervenor: EF
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Public Family Law Proceedings (care Proceedings) / Judgment After Finding of Fact Hearing
Outcome
Findings of fact made; some allegations proved, others not proved; directions to be agreed for welfare decisions regarding LB's future care.
Legal Topics
Care Proceedings, Vulnerable Adults, Direct Payments Misuse, Rape of a Person Lacking Capacity, Safeguarding, Best Interests, Dishonesty in Care Arrangements
Family Law Child Protection Mental Capacity Care Proceedings Vulnerable Adults Direct Payments Misuse Rape of a Person Lacking Capacity Safeguarding +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A London Local Authority

Applicant

KB (by her litigation friend, the Official Solicitor)

First Respondent

LB (a Child by his Children’s Guardian)

Second Respondent

GH

First Intervenor

AB

Second Intervenor

CD

Third Intervenor

EF

Fourth Intervenor

Procedural Posture

Public Family Law Proceedings (care Proceedings) / Judgment After Finding of Fact Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether AB misused Direct Payments intended for KB's care
  2. 2 Whether AB, CD, EF failed to protect KB from rape by GH
  3. 3 Whether AB, CD, EF failed to seek timely medical attention for KB's pregnancy

Ratio Decidendi

AB dishonestly misused Direct Payments intended for KB's care, diverting funds to herself and GH, but this did not facilitate the rape of KB by GH, who was a family member with access regardless of payment arrangements. There was no evidence that AB, CD, or EF knew or should have known of the risk of sexual assault, nor that they colluded to conceal the pregnancy or prevent termination. AB ought to have sought medical attention for KB by late June 2020, but there is no proof she knew or should have known KB was pregnant before 30 July 2020. The family did not abuse positions of trust regarding the LPA, but AB acted dishonestly by using KB's name in financial documents. Risks to LB and KB...

Court Disposition

Findings of fact made; some allegations proved, others not proved; directions to be agreed for welfare decisions regarding LB's future care.

Orders

  • Findings of fact as set out in the judgment and Scott Schedule
  • Parties to agree directions for welfare decisions regarding LB