Latest articles
Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v DV (A Child) [2021] EWHC 1037 (Fam)
(Family Division, Cohen J, 19 April 2021)Medical Treatment – 17-year-old had form of bone cancer and required surgery For comprehensive, judicially approved coverage of every important...
Domestic Abuse Bill
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsAfter years of development the Domestic Abuse Bill returned to the House of Lords in the UK on the 8th March 2021 to complete its report stage, one of the final...
Coercive control and children’s welfare in Re H-N and Others
When families come to strife, arrangements must be made for the future care of any children. In some circumstances, this means an application to the courts. These ‘private law orders’ can...
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...
View all articles
Authors

SPECIAL GUARDIANSHIP/ LOCAL AUTHORITY ALLOCATION: Suffolk County Council v Nottinghamshire County Council [2012] EWCA Civ 1640

Sep 29, 2018, 18:35 PM
Slug : special-guardianship-local-authority-allocation-suffolk-county-council-v-nottinghamshire-county-council-2012-ewca-civ-1640
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Dec 20, 2012, 02:30 AM
Article ID : 101193

(Court of Appeal, Thorpe, Black LJJ, Hedley J, 11 December 2012)

The two young children were removed from their parents' care due to their volatile relationship. They were placed with a relative of the mother's who was in a same-sex relationship with another woman. A plan emerged for the women to care for the children long term under a special guardianship order.

The parents lived within the area of Nottinghamshire CC which had initiated proceedings while the carers lived in the area of Suffolk CC. The authorities were now in dispute as to their duties under s 14A-F of the Children Act 1989.

The law both prescribed the incidence of responsibility and provided for a high degree of flexibility. When a child was placed out of area it was of critical importance that consideration was given to whether the child would remain looked after, under an interim care order or accommodated, or not, under a residence order. Local authorities should co-operate at the earliest opportunity to agree as to who would execute the statutory duties and take responsibility for funding.

Suffolk CC and Nottinghamshire CC had now agreed to a proposed outcome whereby Suffolk CC acknowledged it was the responsible authority but discussions with Nottinghamshire CC would take place as to allocation of work and payment.

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