Re B.C. (A Minor) (Care Order: Appropriate Local Authority)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 1995 |
| Date | 1995 |
| Court | Family Division |
BRACEWELL, J
Care order – designated local authority – determination of child's ordinary residence.
Care proceedings were commenced in respect of a child. It was accepted by all parties that the threshold criteria had been established and that a care order should be made. There was no disagreement regarding the care plan, which was to rehabilitate the child to his mother. The only issue to be determined in the case was whether the care order should be made to the Manchester City Council, or to the Cheshire County Council.
Held – When a care order was made under s 31 of the Children Act 1989, it must be made to a designated local authority, which would be that local authority within whose area the child was ordinarily resident. Pursuant to s 105(6), in determining ordinary residence, any period during which the child had been provided with accommodation by a local authority must be disregarded. This would include any time during which the child was subject to an interim care order. The child last lived with his mother in Manchester, when the care proceedings were commenced by the Manchester City Council. The mother subsequently moved to Cheshire. The test propounded in Re M (Minors) (Residence)[1993] 1 FCR 718, did not fall to be questioned, but could not assist in this instance, as it did not cover the facts of this particular case. Bearing in mind the statutory requirement to disregard the period of interim care, the child's ordinary residence must be determined by reference to where he was living before being placed in interim care. That was with his mother in the Manchester area. The appropriate local authority was therefore the Manchester City Council.
Statutory provisions referred to:Children Act 1989, ss 21, 23, 31 and 105.
Case referred to in judgment:M (Minors) (Residence), Re[1993] 1 FCR 718.
Sara Singleton for the Manchester City Council.
Margaret de Haas for the Cheshire County Council.
David Bruce for the mother.
Ian Hamilton, solicitor, for the guardian ad litem.
MRS JUSTICE BRACEWELL.In this case there is no issue about the threshold criteria being established. The parties are all agreed that there should be a care order. I concur with that and I approve of the care plan which is to rehabilitate the child to his mother. The only issue that arises is whether the care order should be to Manchester City Council or to Cheshire County Council.
Miss Singleton, on behalf of Manchester City Council, argues that the appropriate designated local...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council v L and Another
...the area of any local authority for the purposes of s 31(8)(a) of the 1989 Act. Re BC (A Minor) (Care Order: Appropriate Local Authority)[1995] 3 FCR 598 not (2) Section 31(8)(b) of the 1989 Act referred to the child's "residence", not his "ordinary residence". The omission of the word "ord......
-
North Yorkshire County Council v Wiltshire County Council
...would be dismissed. Gateshead Metropolitan BC v L[1996] 3 FCR 582 applied. Re BC (a minor) (care order: appropriate local authority) [1995] 3 FCR 598 and dictum of Sumner J in Newham London BC v I and Brent London BC[1997] 2 FCR 629 Cases referred to in judgmentAkbara v Brent London BC, Abd......
-
Re H (care order: designated local authority)
...to abide by the court’s decisions (see [60], [62], [63], below). (3) Applying Re BC (a minor) (care order: appropriate local authority)[1995] 3 FCR 598 and Northamptonshire County Council v Islington Borough Council [1999] 2 FLR 881, a child’s ordinary residence was deemed to continue unint......
-
Northamptonshire County Council v Islington London Borough Council
...judges at first instance as to their meaning and effect." 11 The debate opens with the decision of Bracewell J in Re BC (Minor) (Care Order: Appropriate Local Authority) [1995] 3 FCR 598. She held that the disregard provisions of section 105(6) required the court to determine the child's or......