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...
Latest articles
Practical aspects to assessing competence in children
Rebecca Stevens, Partner, Royds Withy KingThis is an article regarding the practical aspects to assessing competence in children. The article explores a range of practicalities, such as meeting a...
Scrumping the crop of recent pension decisions
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...
Conduct in financial remedies – when is it now a relevant consideration?
Rachel Gillman, 1 GC/Family LawThis article provides an overview of all aspects of financial misconduct following the recent decision of Mostyn J in OG v AG [2020] EWFC 52, wherein all aspects of...
The treatment of RSUs/Stock Options in light of XW v XH
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....
Hundreds of thousands of companies worldwide fall victims to hackers every year. Is your firm one of them?
SPONSORED CONTENT Image source: Information is beautifulYou and other lawyers and legal assistants in your firm likely have accounts on the hacked websites listed in the image above. If a hacker...
View all articles


Sep 29, 2018, 17:06 PM
Slug : gc-v-ld-2009-ewhc-1942-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jul 24, 2009, 04:22 AM
Article ID : 85893

(Family Division; Black J; 24 July 2009)

The child had come into the care of the first local authority when the mother was incapacitated by mental illness. Although the child was at first placed with a local authority foster carer, within a month he went to live with his paternal grandmother, who lived in the area of the second local authority. A residence order was later made in favour of the grandmother, expressed to be 'in the interim'; in due course steps were taken to make a special guardianship order in favour of the grandmother. The grandmother sought declarations to determine which of the two authorities was responsible for the child's financial support, and on what basis. A key question was whether the making of the residence order had resulted in the child ceasing to be looked after by the first local authority, as the first authority claimed. The first authority conceded that it was responsible for paying for the child for the period between the making of the residence order and the making of the special guardianship order, but disputed the mechanism: if the child had continued to be 'looked after' the first authority would pay a fostering allowance; if the child had ceased to be 'looked after', the first authority would pay a residence order allowance. In respect to the future, if the child had continued to be looked after, the first authority would continue to have obligations in relation to special guardianship support, whereas if the child had ceased to be looked after from the time that the residence order was made, the second authority would become responsible once the special guardianship order had been made.

Applying the Court of Appeal authorities Re H (Care Order: Appropriate Local Authority) [2003] EWCA Civ 1629 and Southwark London Borough Council v D [2007] EWCA Civ 182, Children Act 1989, s 23(2), on the provision of accommodation and maintenance to a child, and s 23(6), on the making of arrangements to enable a child to live with someone, were two different routes by which children could be housed, each with wholly different consequences. When arrangements were made for a child pursuant to s 23(6), he was not being provided with accommodation by the local authority and, following placement, unless he was the subject of a care order, he ceased to be a looked after child. When arrangements were made pursuant to s 23(2), the child was being provided with accommodation by the local authority. As conceded, the child had initially been placed with the grandmother under s 23(2), but the first authority had ceased to provide the child with accommodation when the residence order was made. A s 20 duty on the first authority to accommodate the child was wholly inconsistent with a residence order, which was an independent, court approved and non-temporary basis on which the child was to be provided with accommodation by a person with parental responsibility. The child had therefore ceased to be a looked after child on the making of a residence order in favour of the grandmother. As a result, the second authority was the authority to which the grandmother would look for support in relation to the proposed special guardianship order. The allowance that the first authority would be paying the grandmother would be a residence order allowance, although, in the circumstances, it might be indistinguishable from the allowance that would have been paid had the child remained a looked after child.

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