Rhys Taylor, 36 Family and 30 Park PlaceJonathan Galbraith, Mathieson Consulting2020 has thus far proved to be a memorable year for all the wrong reasons, but nonetheless it remains an interesting one...
Peter Mitchell QC, 29 Bedford RowStock Options and Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) are frequently encountered by the Family Court when dividing property on divorce or dissolution of a Civil Partnership....
This article charts a course through the complexities of the law on designation in a Care Order. It explains the recent ruling of Bodey J in Sheffield CC v Bradford MDC  1 FLR (forthcoming). The Court ruled that new provisions of the Children Act 1989 (which came into force 1 April 2011) change the pre-existing law on designation. The previous law in Re H (Care Order: Appropriate Local Authority)  EWCA Civ 1629,  1 FLR 534 no longer applies as it was based upon s 3 of the 1989 Act which has been repealed. In its place, s 22C is now the key section.
The ruling marks a fundamental change to the law on designation where a child is placed with relatives in a different area. In a case in which the issuing local authority ('A') places a child in the interim with relatives in the area of a different local authority ('B') and then proposes that the child should remain there under a care order:
Under the 'old' law, local authority B would have been designated.
Under the 'new' law, local authority A will now be designated.
The article addresses the implications of this change to the law using a series of case examples.
The full version of this article appears in the February 2013 issue of Family Law.