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
Profession: Expert Witness
The value of a family business or business interest is treated as an asset and therefore part of the matrimonial pot to be distributed when it comes to negotiating a financial settlement on divorce or...
How does a jointly held property pass on death?
When meeting with clients to discuss their succession planning, many cannot recall whether their property is held jointly as joint tenants or jointly as tenants in common. The distinction is that with...
Unequal chances? Ethnic disproportionality in child welfare and family justice
Many have experienced their own Black Lives Matter moment in the last 12 months, a sharp realisation of entrenched prejudices and inequalities that still exist in our society.In the family justice...
Changes to the law on Domestic Abuse
Official statistics (ONS (2016), March 2015 Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW)) show that around 2 million people suffer from some form of domestic abuse each year in the UK. In...
Managing costs in complex children cases
In November 2020 Spice Girl Mel B was in the news, despairing about how the legal costs of trying to relocate her daughter Madison from the US to England were likely to bankrupt her, leading to her...
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