Introduction

The case of B (A Child)(Designated Local Authority) ([2020] EWCA Civ 1673) adjudicated by the England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) on December 10, 2020, centers on the critical issue of designating the appropriate local authority in care order proceedings under the Children Act 1989 (CA 1989). This case involves Salford City Council ("Salford"), Lincolnshire City Council ("Lincolnshire"), and Cheshire East Council, each contesting the designation for a 15-year-old girl referred to as "J". The dispute arose from conflicting views on whether periods of J's residence with her birth brother ("DB") and birth mother should be disregarded when determining her ordinary residence, thereby influencing the designation of the local authority responsible for her care.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeal overturned the initial designation of Salford City Council as the responsible local authority, favoring Lincolnshire City Council instead. The crux of the decision lay in the interpretation and application of Sections 31(8) and 105(6) of the CA 1989, which govern the designation process and the disregard of certain residency periods, respectively. The appellate court emphasized that J was being accommodated by Lincolnshire during the disputed periods, and thus, under the disregard provision, these periods should not influence the designation. The judgment underscored the necessity for a precise and fact-based determination of accommodation status, warning against overly complex judicial reviews that deviate from established precedents.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment heavily relied on prior cases to shape its reasoning. Notably:

• Northampton CC v Islington Council [1999] EWCA Civ 3031 (Thorpe LJ): Advocated for a "rapid and not over sophisticated" review in designation disputes to conserve judicial and local authority resources.
• Re D (A Child) [2012] EWCA Civ 627 (Ward LJ): Reinforced the need for straightforward mechanisms in designation disputes, emphasizing the avoidance of resource wastage.
• Y (a Child) [2019] EWCA Civ 2209: Echoed Thorpe LJ's stance on rapid reviews, further cementing the approach towards handling designation disputes efficiently.
• London Borough of Southwark v D [2007] EWCA Civ 182: Clarified the definition of "looked after child" under Section 22 CA 1989, stating that a child becomes looked after as soon as the Section 20 duty arises.
• R (GE (Eritrea)) v SSHD [2016] EWCA Civ 1490: Highlighted the complexities in distinguishing between public authority roles and private fostering arrangements.
• Williams & Anor v Hackney LBC [2019] 1 FLR 310: Discussed the delegation of parental responsibility in fostering arrangements.

These precedents collectively informed the court's approach, emphasizing factual accuracy, swift resolution, and adherence to statutory duties without undue judicial elaboration.

Legal Reasoning

The Court of Appeal's reasoning centered on the interpretation of Section 31(8) and Section 105(6) of the CA 1989:

• Section 31(8) CA 1989: Mandates that the local authority where the child is ordinarily resident, considering the disregard provision, should be designated.
• Section 105(6) CA 1989: Instructs courts to disregard periods when the child is provided accommodation by a local authority when determining ordinary residence.

The judge initially designated Salford based on the care order application. However, upon appeal, it was determined that J was still under Lincolnshire's accommodation, despite movements to Cheshire East and Salford. The appellate court scrutinized the lack of formalities in J's placements with DB and her mother, ultimately concluding that these were private arrangements without proper authorization. Consequently, Lincolnshire remained responsible under the disregard provision since J was effectively under their accommodation during those periods.

The court also criticized the initial judge's reliance on an insufficiently informed social worker's statement instead of a comprehensive review of all source materials, leading to factual inaccuracies. This oversight underscored the importance of meticulous fact-finding in designation disputes.

Impact

This judgment has significant implications for future designation disputes:

• Reaffirmation of Statutory Duties: Emphasizes strict adherence to statutory provisions governing local authority responsibilities, minimizing discretionary deviations.
• Clarity in Accommodation Status: Reinforces the necessity to accurately determine whether a child is accommodated under a local authority, affecting how disregarded periods are applied.
• Judicial Efficiency: While upholding the principle of rapid reviews, the judgment highlights the need for thoroughness to avoid factual errors.
• Resource Allocation: Encourages local authorities to collaborate and agree on chronologies proactively, reducing court involvement and resource expenditure.

Overall, the decision promotes a balanced approach that safeguards the welfare of children while ensuring that legal processes remain efficient and grounded in factual integrity.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Disregard Provision (Section 105(6) CA 1989)

This provision instructs courts to ignore any periods when a child is being cared for by a local authority when determining where the child is ordinarily resident. For instance, if a child moves between different local authorities, time spent under the care of any authority should not affect the ultimate designation of responsibility.

Accommodation vs. Private Fostering Arrangements

Accommodation under Section 20 CA 1989: When a local authority provides shelter and care for a child in need, actively taking responsibility for their welfare.

Private Fostering Arrangements under Section 66 CA 1989: Occurs when a child lives with a relative or non-relative without the local authority's direct involvement, typically with parental consent and without formal local authority responsibilities.

Looked After Child (Section 22 CA 1989)

A child is considered "looked after" when they are in the care of a local authority, either directly or through arrangement, and this status triggers specific duties and support mechanisms to ensure the child’s welfare.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal's decision in B (A Child) ([2020] EWCA Civ 1673) underscores the paramount importance of accurately determining a child's accommodation status under the Children Act 1989. By prioritizing factual precision and statutory adherence, the judgment aims to streamline the designation process, ensuring that children receive appropriate care without undue delay or administrative complexity. The ruling serves as a critical guidepost for local authorities, emphasizing collaborative efforts to resolve designation disputes and safeguard children's welfare effectively. Moreover, it highlights the judiciary's role in upholding legal standards while advocating for efficient and child-centric resolutions in family law matters.