FD25C40134 - [2025] EWHC 745 (Fam)

Fecha: 24-Mar-2025

In QX’s case, s. 20(1)( c) is the relevant provision The three other most relevant provisions are

20.

In QX’s case, s. 20(1)( c) is the relevant provision.

21.

The three other most relevant provisions are:

(6)

Before providing accommodation under this section, a local authority shall, so far as is reasonably practicable and consistent with the child’s welfare—

(a)ascertain the child’s wishes and feelings regarding the provision of accommodation; and

(b)give due consideration (having regard to his age and understanding) to such wishes and feelings of the child as they have been able to ascertain.

(7)

A local authority may not provide accommodation under this section for any child if any person who—

(a)has parental responsibility for him; and

(b)is willing and able to—

(i)provide accommodation for him; or

(ii)arrange for accommodation to be provided for him,

objects.

(8)

Any person who has parental responsibility for a child may at any time remove the child from accommodation provided by or on behalf of the local authority under this section.

25.

So, clearly in this case it is vitally important that DM, who is the person with the longest continuous experience of caring for QX, is involved in the s. 20 process. Mr Singh Hayer, in his submissions made the important point that the whole philosophy behind s. 20 and the Children Act more generally is for those who exercise PR to be enabled to do so, and that means, where possible, with the support of the LA. Care proceedings are draconian, and the LA gaining PR of the child is something that should only happen where it is a necessary and proportionate interference with the Article 8 rights of the child, and his family.

26.

Furthermore, if an interim or final care order were to be made in this case DM and DF’s PR would be discharged by the operation of s. 91(2) CA.

27.

The Court was not invited to consider whether there were other approaches that could keep PR in place with a care order. The obvious one being special guardianship, which was not asked for back in December 2023, or perhaps even the use of the inherent jurisdiction to grant PR.