The court had to decide to which of two local authorities, responsibility for supervising a care order should be assigned. The child had moved to live with his grandparents.
Held: The judge had been correct to find that family circumstances might justify not following the rules in Northamptonshire and Plymouth, but the case was not sufficiently exceptional on that ground. However, the child here could properly be said to have been resident with the grandparents, and the order assigning responsibility to the authority where they lived was appropriate.
Judges:
Lord Justice Jonathan Parker Lord Justice Thorpe Lord Justice Dyson
Citations:
[2003] EWCA Civ 1629, Times 26-Nov-2003, Gazette 15-Jan-2004, [2004] 2 WLR 419, [2004] Fam 89
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Northamptonshire County Council v Islington London Borough Council CA 21-Jul-1999
When two local authorities were competing not to be responsible for the costs of a child committed to care, and the child had proper connections with both areas, the issue was to be decided by asking first whether the child had in fact any ‘ordinary . .
Cited – Plymouth City Council v C and Another CA 21-Mar-2000
Where a child coming into care had had connection with two local authorities beforehand, the primary statutory responsibility for care would be determined by assessing which was the authority with a connection to the child immediately before the . .
Applied – Re C (Care Order: Appropriate Local Authority) 1997
A local authority which permitted children in care to remain at home with their mother was not providing accommodation within the meaning of section 23(1)(a) of the Children Act 1989 and accordingly section 105(6)(c) did not apply. The court . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Children, Local Government
Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.187975
