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

RESIDENCE/HOUSING: Holmes-Moorhouse v Richmond-upon-Thames London Borough Council [2007] EWCA Civ 970

Sep 29, 2018, 17:07 PM
Slug : holmes-moorhouse-v-richmond-upon-thames-london-borough-council-2007-ewca-civ-970
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Oct 22, 2007, 04:22 AM
Article ID : 86833

(Court of Appeal; Auld, Rix and Moses LJJ; 10 October 2007)

The judge had made a shared residence order in respect of the couple's three younger children, and an order that the father leave the family home, both by consent. The children were to spend alternate weeks and half of each school holiday with each parent. The father applied to the housing authority for assistance as a homeless person in priority need. The application was rejected, at first because residency and care were shared and the children's needs could be met while they were with the mother, but on review on the basis that the children were staying with, not living with, the father.

The local housing authority was required to satisfy itself of the reasonableness of the expectation of an applicant for housing assistance that dependant children would come to live with the applicant; the order of the family court under s 8 was not dispositive of that question. However, there was no room for permitting the scarcity of resources to play a part in considering the reasonableness of the expectation that dependant children would come to live with the applicant. A distinction must be drawn between those cases in which the residence order was made despite opposition, and those in which it was made by consent. Where a residence order was opposed, the family court had a statutory obligation to have regard to the accommodation available to each parent. Where a parent had no available accommodation, the authority must consider the likelihood of such accommodation becoming available, and would therefore be bound to make enquiries of the relevant housing authority. The housing authority could take that opportunity to place before the family court matters relevant to the authority's own statutory obligations. When a shared residence order had been made notwithstanding such enquiries, then it was difficult to see how the housing authority could displace the conclusion that the expectation of the parent benefiting from the shared order was reasonable. However, where the order was made by consent and it was apparent that the court had not considered the capability of the parent to meet the accommodation needs of the child, a local housing authority was obliged to consider afresh the reasonableness of the parents expectation. If it decided that the expectation was not reasonable, the parent should then return to the family court so that the court could reconsider the order.

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