London Borough of Redbridge v Newport City Council & Ors

Designation of a local authority under Children Act 1989, s 31(8), primarily depends on the child’s ordinary residence at the time of determination. Periods during which the child is accommodated by or on behalf of a local authority are disregarded under s 105(6). That disregard does not apply while the child is living with a parent, relative, friend or other connected person who is not providing accommodation on behalf of a local authority. The court may consider developments during a disregarded period only in exceptional circumstances. If the child is not ordinarily resident in any local authority area, the designated authority is the authority in whose area the primary circumstances leading to the care proceedings arose. A designation made during proceedings may later be revisited if ordinary residence changes.

Care proceedings concerned five children who had moved with their mother from Redbridge to Newport during the proceedings. The children had initially been placed in foster care and later in a residential placement with their mother. From February 2003 they lived with her at home, first in Barking and later in Newport.

The issue was which local authority should hold the interim care orders and any final care orders. Redbridge argued that Newport had become the relevant authority because the family had moved there with a settled intention to remain. Newport argued that the proceedings had arisen in Redbridge and that the move was too recent to establish ordinary residence there.

1. Designation and ordinary residence. The court held that the first question under Children Act 1989, s 31(8), was the children’s ordinary residence at the time of the hearing. Section 105(6) required specified periods of accommodation by or on behalf of a local authority to be disregarded.
2. Scope of the disregard. The clock-stop approach applied while the children were in foster care and in the residential placement. It did not apply once they were placed at home with their mother, because they were no longer being provided with accommodation by or on behalf of a local authority. The same applied while they lived with their mother in Newport. The court followed the reasoning in Re C (Care Order: Appropriate Local Authority) [1997] 1 FLR 544 and Re H (A Child) [2003] EWCA Civ 1629.
3. Exceptional circumstances. Developments during a disregarded period could be considered only in exceptional cases. A new residence and severance of former local connections did not, without more, constitute exceptional circumstances. The court applied the guidance in Northamptonshire County Council v Islington London Borough Council [1999] 2 FLR 881 and Re C (A Child) v Plymouth City Council [2000] 1 FLR 875.
4. Fallback provision. If the children were not ordinarily resident in any local authority area, s 31(8)(b) required designation of the authority in whose area the primary circumstances carrying the case over the statutory threshold had arisen. No separate assessment of exceptional circumstances or intervening events was required at that stage.
5. Application. The children had ceased to be ordinarily resident in Redbridge, but three months in Newport, including only six weeks in the current accommodation, was insufficient to establish ordinary residence there. The settled intention to remain was relevant but did not by itself satisfy the requirement for an appreciable period of residence. Redbridge was therefore designated. The decision could be revisited later if the facts justified a change.