Introduction

The case of G, Re (Designation of Local Authority) ([2024] EWCA Civ 1565) concerns the designation of a local authority responsible for the care of a five-month-old child, G. The primary parties involved are Cheshire East Council ("Cheshire"), who initiated the care proceedings, and Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council ("Calderdale"), contesting the designation. The key issues revolve around the interpretation of "ordinary residence" under the Children Act 1989 and the application of section 31(8) concerning the appropriate local authority for care orders.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeal upheld the Family Court's decision to designate Calderdale as the local authority responsible for the care of G. The Judge initially determined that G's ordinary residence was in Calderdale, primarily based on the parents' move to the area and subsequent actions that demonstrated an intention to reside there. Cheshire appealed this decision, arguing that the judgment misapplied statutory provisions and overlooked relevant factors. However, the Court of Appeal found that the Judge was within his discretion, correctly interpreting and applying the relevant sections of the Children Act 1989, particularly sections 31(8) and 105(6).

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced several key precedents to underpin its reasoning:

• Re P (Care Proceedings: Designated Authority) [1998] 1 FLR 80: Established foundational principles for designating local authorities in care proceedings.
• Northamptonshire CC v Islington London Borough Council [1999] EWCA Civ 3031: Emphasized the prioritization of ordinary residence over circumstances arising in care orders.
• Re W (A Child) [CA] and A v A (ZA & NA v PA) [SC]: Addressed the dependency of a child's ordinary residence on that of the parent.
• Re S (A Child) [2017] EWCA Civ 2695: Clarified the necessity of physical presence in determining ordinary residence.
• Plymouth County Council [2000] 1 FLR 875: Highlighted that a newborn's ordinary residence is inherently tied to the mother's.

Legal Reasoning

The Court of Appeal scrutinized the Judge's interpretation of section 31(8) and section 105(6) of the Children Act 1989. Key points in the legal reasoning include:

• Ordinary Residence of Dependency: The court reaffirmed that a child's ordinary residence typically depends on that of the parent, especially in cases involving newborns or very young children.
• Disregard Provisions: Section 105(6) mandates that periods when a child is in specific accommodations (like hospitals) be disregarded when determining ordinary residence. The court maintained that this does not negate the dependency of the child's residence on the parent's.
• Physical Presence: Emphasized the necessity of physical presence in the local authority area to establish ordinary residence, supporting conclusions that the mother's actions indicated a genuine move to Calderdale.
• Substantive vs. Procedural: The court differentiated between procedural errors and substantive findings, ultimately finding no procedural faults in the Judge's decision.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the principle that a child's ordinary residence is fundamentally linked to that of the parent(s), particularly in the context of dependency. It clarifies the application of disregard provisions, ensuring that temporary accommodations like hospitals do not override established dependencies. The decision also underscores the importance of physical presence in the local authority area when designating responsibility for care orders. Future cases will likely cite this judgment in disputes over local authority designation, especially regarding the interpretation of "ordinary residence" and the application of section 105(6).

Complex Concepts Simplified

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal's decision in G, Re (Designation of Local Authority) reaffirms the significance of a child's ordinary residence in determining the responsible local authority for care orders. By meticulously interpreting sections 31(8) and 105(6) of the Children Act 1989, the court underscored the dependency of a child's residence on that of the parent, especially in cases involving very young children. The judgment provides clarity on the application of disregard provisions and emphasizes the necessity of physical presence in the designated area. This case serves as a pivotal reference for future disputes over local authority designation, ensuring that the child's best interests remain paramount in legal determinations.