header-logo header-logo

Family law

10 July 2008
Issue: 7329 / Categories: Case law , Child law , Law digest , Family
printer mail-detail

Re M (a child) (secure accommodation order) [2008] EWHC 1085 (Fam), [2008] All ER (D) 389 (Jun)

A free standing application cannot be made for an interim secure accommodation order. The power to make an interim order only arises under s 25(5) of the Children Act 1989 if the court adjourns the hearing of the local authority’s application.

The preliminary procedural question for the court on any application for a secure accommodation order is whether to proceed to determine the application or whether to adjourn it. If the court is satisfied it has all the information that it needs to determine the issues raised by the application and that it would be procedurally fair to proceed, then it is likely that there will be no grounds upon which the court can properly adjourn the substan-tive application.

In those circumstances the court must proceed to determine the application for the secure accommodation order. If the court decides to adjourn the application, then the period of adjournment should be the minimum necessary to ensure the factors justifying an adjournment are addressed.

The function and role of the children’s guardian within secure accommodation proceedings is to provide assistance to the court with the issues raised by the application. It is not to oversee the exercise by the local authority of its statutory duties, nor to perform a free-standing welfare role for the benefit of the child.

Issue: 7329 / Categories: Case law , Child law , Law digest , Family
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Weightmans—Emma Eccles & Mark Woodall

Weightmans—Emma Eccles & Mark Woodall

Firm bolsters Manchester insurance practice with double partner appointment

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Partner joins family law team inLondon

Jackson Lees Group—five promotions

Jackson Lees Group—five promotions

Private client division announces five new partners

NEWS
The landmark Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd—along with Rukhadze v Recovery Partners—redefine fiduciary duties in commercial fraud. Writing in NLJ this week, Mary Young of Kingsley Napley analyses the implications of the rulings
Barristers Ben Keith of 5 St Andrew’s Hill and Rhys Davies of Temple Garden Chambers use the arrest of Simon Leviev—the so-called Tinder Swindler—to explore the realities of Interpol red notices, in this week's NLJ
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] has upended assumptions about who may conduct litigation, warn Kevin Latham and Fraser Barnstaple of Kings Chambers in this week's NLJ. But is it as catastrophic as first feared?
Lord Sales has been appointed to become the Deputy President of the Supreme Court after Lord Hodge retires at the end of the year
Limited liability partnerships (LLPs) are reportedly in the firing line in Chancellor Rachel Reeves upcoming Autumn budget
back-to-top-scroll