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
Help separated parents ditch avoidance strategies that stop them resolving differences
The desire to avoid conflict with an ex is the primary reason that separated parents do not get to see their children.  That’s an eye-opening finding from a survey of 1,105 separated...
What is a Cohabitation Agreement, and do I need one?
Many couples, despite living together, never seek to legally formalise their living and financial arrangements.  They mistakenly believe that the concept of a ‘common law’ husband and...
Welsh Government launches consultation on amendments to adoption regulations
The Welsh Government has launched a consultation on the proposed amendments to the Adoption Agencies (Wales) Regulations 2005 and the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (Wales) Regulations 2015....
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...
View all articles
Authors

RESIDENCE ORDER: RE B (Looked After Child) [2013] EWCA Civ 964

Sep 29, 2018, 21:11 PM
Slug : residence-order-re-b-looked-after-child-2013-ewca-civ-964
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Aug 6, 2013, 10:22 AM
Article ID : 103275

(Court of Appeal, Richards, Leveson, Black LJJ, 30 July 2013)

When the child was 5 months old an interim residence order was granted to the grandparents, against the parents' wishes, and while the local authority was prepared to make payments to help with childcare costs it did not accept that it had duties to the child as  a looked after child. The grandparents were refused a fostering and residence order allowance.

The local authority appealed against a decision that the child was a looked after child following the grant of the interim residence order. It submitted that the child had been ‘in need' for the purposes of the Children Act 1989, s 20(1) only until she moved to live with the grandparents, as, although it had a duty to provide the child with accommodation under s 20(1), it had been prevented from fulfilling it by s 20(7) because the parents had objected to her being accommodated.

The appeal was allowed. It was an important factor that the parents had objected at all times to the local authority providing accommodation for the child. Either a duty arose under s 20(1)(c) because she was in need as her carers were prevented from providing her with suitable accommodation but the local authority were prevented by the parents' objections from fulfilling that duty because of s 20(7). Or, the joint effect of s 20(1) and s 20(7) was to prevent a duty arising at all. Either way, the local authority could not have provided K with accommodation under s 20(1) at any time. As soon as a residence order was made, it conferred parental responsibility under s 12(2) and the child was, therefore, provided with accommodation by the person with parental responsibility. Where a child was in the authority's care, the making of a residence order immediately discharged the care order pursuant to s 91(1) and the child was no longer looked after.

 

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