Spotlight
Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2021 edition due out in May
Court of Protection Practice 2021
'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
JM v RM [2021] EWHC 315 (Fam)
(Family Division, Mostyn J, 22 February 2021)Abduction – Wrongful retention – Hague Convention application – Mother decided not to return to Australia with children – COVID 19...
Re A (A Child) (Hague Convention 1980: Set Aside) [2021] EWCA Civ 194
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Moylan, Asplin LJJ, Hayden J, 23 February 2021)Abduction – Hague Convention 1980 – Return order made – Mother successfully applied to set aside due...
Disabled women more than twice as likely to experience domestic abuse
The latest data from the Office of National Statistics shows that, in the year ending March 2020, around 1 in 7 (14.3%) disabled people aged 16 to 59 years experienced any form of domestic abuse in...
The President of the Family Division endorses Public Law Working Group report
The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary has published a message from the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, in which the President endorses the publication of the President’s...
HMCTS updates online divorce services guidance
HM Courts and Tribunals Service have recently updated the online divorce services guidance with the addition of guides for deemed and dispensed service applications, alternative service...
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