Court Report: Council appeals care responsibility

Case name D (A Child)
Case number [2012] EWCA Civ 627
Judge Ward LG and Elias LJ (majority opinion), Stanley Burton LJ (dissenting opinion)
Location Court of Appeal

This case involved an appeal regarding which local authority was responsible for implementing a care order for a child in Kent, whose mother was herself a child in the care of Surrey County Council, but who was living with foster parents in Kent.

Kent County Council appealed as to whether Kent or Surrey County Council was the designated local authority in the care order for the baby, made to Kent by Medway County Court. The child was born in Kent, taken into police protection by Kent, and placed with foster parents under an interim care order granted to Kent. The mother was a child in the care of Surrey County Council but placed with foster parents in Kent.

Kent argued that any period of accommodation in their area should be disregarded and that as the baby’s grandmother was ordinarily resident in Surrey and the mother was still a child, Surrey was also responsible for the baby and therefore should be the designated local authority. The Court of Appeal considered sections 31 and 105(6) of the Children Act 1989 in depth. Ward and Elias LJJ disagreed with Kent, arguing that such reasoning would give rise to absurdities. However, Stanley Burton LJ disagreed with Ward LJ, arguing that it was in the best interests of the child that the child and its mother fall under the responsibility of the same local authority. The appeal was dismissed.



Legal Update is produced in association with experts at Coram Children’s Legal Centre www.childrenslegalcentre.com

For free legal advice to frontline professionals on all child protection and safeguarding issues call 020 7636 1245

Sign up to the monthly childRIGHT bulletin from CYP Now and Coram Children’s Legal Centre, for the latest news ?and information about children, young people and the law: www.cypnow.co.uk/email-bulletins