Spotlight
Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Spotlight
Latest articles
Resolution issues Brexit notes for family lawyers ahead of IP completion day
Family lawyer organisation, Resolution, has issued two joint notes to assist family lawyers in England and Wales ahead of the end of the Brexit transition/implementation period at 11 pm on 31 December...
Online filing is real-time on New Year's Eve: practice direction change to accommodate EU withdrawal arrangements
I have heard that there will be an amendment to the relevant practice directions to provide that online applications received on New Year’s Eve after 4:30 PM and before 11:00 PM will count as...
Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust v AB
The issue in this case concerned AB’s capacity to make specific decisions about treatment relating to her anorexia nervosa. She was 28 years old and had suffered with anorexia since the age of...
EU laws continue until at least 2038 and beyond
The UK left the EU on 31 January 2020.  But in matters of law it fully leaves on 31 December 2020.  But EU laws will continue to apply, and be applied, in the English family courts from 1...
Remote hearings in family proceedings – how is justice perceived?
The motion for the recent Kingsley Napley debate:  “This House believes remote hearings are not remotely fair” was carried with a fairly balanced 56% in favour and 44% against....
View all articles
Authors

SECURE ACCOMMODATION: Birmingham City Council v M [2008] EWHC 1085 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:19 PM
Slug : birmingham-city-council-v-m-2008-ewhc-1085-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jun 3, 2008, 09:21 AM
Article ID : 89253

(Family Division; McFarlane J; 3 June 2008)

It was not possible to make a free standing application for an interim secure accommodation order; the power to make an interim order under Children Act 1989, s 25(5), arose only if the court adjourned the hearing of the local authority's application. Accordingly, the preliminary procedural question for the court on any application for a secure accommodation order was whether to proceed to determine the application or whether to adjourn it. If the court were satisfied that it had all the information needed to determine the issues raised by the application and that it would be procedurally fair to proceed, then it was likely that there would be no grounds upon which the court could properly adjourn the substantive application. As a matter of principle, if the court decided to adjourn the application the period of adjournment should be the minimum necessary to ensure that the factors justifying an adjournment were addressed. The function and role of the children's guardian within secure accommodation proceedings was to provide assistance to the court with the issues raised by the application, not to oversee the exercise by the local authority of its statutory duties, nor to perform some free-standing welfare role for the benefit of the child. Accordingly, it was not a proper use of the court's power to prolong secure accommodation proceedings simply in order to keep a child's guardian involved for the purposes of assisting the child or overseeing the performance of the local authority's statutory duties.

Categories :
  • Archive
  • Judgments
Tags :
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from