M (Children), Re

M (Children), Re

The sealed court order did not require the local authority to accommodate T but only continued wardship until her 18th birthday. Such an order is lawful and does not breach section 100(2) of the Children Act 1989. The court cannot use its inherent jurisdiction to require a local authority to accommodate a child where the authority does not otherwise intend to do so. The appeal and cross-appeal are dismissed.

Parties
Subject Child: T (a child); Appellant: Appellant (Mother); First Respondent: London Borough of Brent; Second Respondent: Second Respondent (Children's Guardian)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 September 2016
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Wardship, Inherent Jurisdiction, Children Act 1989, Accommodation of Minors, Jurisdictional Limits, Mental Capacity
Family Law Child Protection Wardship Inherent Jurisdiction Children Act 1989 Accommodation of Minors Jurisdictional Limits Mental Capacity

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

T (a child)

Subject Child

Appellant (Mother)

Appellant

London Borough of Brent

First Respondent

Second Respondent (Children's Guardian)

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court has jurisdiction under wardship or inherent jurisdiction to require a local authority to accommodate a 17-year-old child after expiry of care order powers under Children Act 1989
  2. 2 Whether the court's order breached statutory restrictions under Children Act 1989, section 100(2)
  3. 3 Whether wardship/inherent jurisdiction can be extended beyond the child's 18th birthday

Ratio Decidendi

The sealed court order did not require the local authority to accommodate T but only continued wardship until her 18th birthday. Such an order is lawful and does not breach section 100(2) of the Children Act 1989. The court cannot use its inherent jurisdiction to require a local authority to accommodate a child where the authority does not otherwise intend to do so. The appeal and cross-appeal are dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The sealed order stands: T shall remain a ward of court during her minority (until age 18).
  • No extension of wardship beyond 18th birthday.