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 residence’ as such, which would settle the issue in almost every case. The test was not intended to become a detailed investigation. The subsections in combination provide a simple test to enable the court to make a rapid designation of the authority responsible for the care order. Simplicity was to be achieved by deeming the ordinary residence immediately preceding the commencement of the period of disregard to continue uninterrupted: ‘I would not say that developments affecting the family during the period to be disregarded cannot in any case be considered. But I would say that such cases should be exceptional.’
Judges:
Thorpe LJ
Citations:
Gazette 29-Sep-1999, Times 17-Aug-1999, [2001] Fam 364
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – H (Child), Re (Care Order: Appropriate Local Authority) CA 18-Nov-2003
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 . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Children
Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.84355
