GC v LD & Ors

Where a child is accommodated by a local authority without being subject to a care order, the making of a residence order in favour of the person caring for the child gives that person parental responsibility and ends the local authority’s provision of accommodation. The child therefore ceases to be looked after, even where the residence order is interim and forms part of the authority’s plan for a later special guardianship order.

The distinction between accommodation provided under Children Act 1989, s 23(2), and arrangements enabling a child to live with a relative or other connected person under s 23(6), was treated as binding. The authority responsible for future special guardianship support is consequently determined by the child’s status after the residence order.

DD was accommodated by the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames after his mother became unable to care for him. He was placed with his paternal grandmother, and an interim residence order was later made in her favour. The parties then contemplated a special guardianship order.

The dispute concerned which of two local authorities was responsible for financial support during the period between the residence order and the special guardianship order, and which authority would be responsible for future special guardianship support. The central issue was whether DD remained a child looked after by the Royal Borough after the residence order.

1. The application was determined in favour of Lancashire County Council. DD ceased to be a looked after child when the residence order was made in favour of his paternal grandmother. Lancashire County Council was therefore responsible for support connected with the proposed special guardianship order, while the Royal Borough was responsible for a residence order allowance during the intervening period.
2. DD initially fell within Children Act 1989, s 20(1), because he was a child in need who required accommodation after the person caring for him became unable to provide suitable care. He was then looked after under s 22(1)(b), since the Royal Borough provided him with accommodation in exercising social services functions.
3. The court accepted the approach in Re H (Care Order: Appropriate Local Authority) [2003] EWCA Civ 1629 and Southwark LBC v D [2007] EWCA Civ 182 as binding. Sections 23(2) and 23(6) provide two legally distinct routes by which a child may be housed. A placement under s 23(2) involves accommodation provided by the local authority. Arrangements under s 23(6) enable the child to live with a relative or other connected person and, unless the child is subject to a care order, end looked-after status.
4. The making of a residence order gave the grandmother parental responsibility under s 12(2). It also meant that she fell within s 23(4)(b) and ceased to be a local authority foster parent. The court regarded the acquisition of parental responsibility through the residence order as the readily identifiable event which ended the local authority’s provision of accommodation.
5. The court rejected the submission that the result was a random or accidental transfer of responsibility. The legal consequences followed from the statutory scheme. The fact that the residence order was interim, encouraged by the local authority, and part of a plan for special guardianship did not preserve looked-after status.
6. Black J raised, but did not decide, whether ss 23(2), (5) and (6) might form part of a unified statutory structure. Any wider reconsideration would require examination of the Act and the relevant placement and fostering regulations in another case.