Family Court judge rules in dispute between councils over which should be designated local authority

Oxfordshire County Council must be the designated authority for social services for children now living in Rotherham, a Family Court judge has ruled.

The case of Z (care orders : designated local authority), Re [2019] EWFC B30 concerning children AZ, BZ, CZ, DZ - who are aged from 10 to two - arose because the children had moved between the two areas.

HHJ Vincent said mental health problems had affected the children’s mother and the family had moved from Bristol to Oxfordshire, then to Rotherham to be near paternal grandparents and then back to Oxfordshire when the parents’ relationship broke down before the children returned to their father and grandparents in Rotherham.

The mother misused drugs and alcohol and her behaviour was “often unpredictable, challenging and sometimes she was violent towards her parents.

“She was unable to manage the children's needs, and prioritised relationships with risky individuals before family life, which became chaotic, unsettling and very difficult for the children.”

The mother was later violently assaulted by a man and left the area and the children then moved back to Rotherham.

Their care plan is for them to remain in the joint care of their paternal grandparents and father, with a view to them moving to live with their father once he is able to obtain accommodation of his own, and is in a position to take on full responsibility for the children.

Oxfordshire asked the court to find that Rotherham is the designated local authority and should take on the care orders.

Counsel for Rotherham submitted that although the children are currently ordinarily resident in Rotherham, for the purposes of determining designation, the Court must disregard any period where the children have been provided with accommodation by a local authority.

She argued that the children were accommodated with relatives first subject to section 20 and then pursuant to interim care orders, i.e. they were at all these times being provided with accommodation by the local authority. The last place the children were ordinarily resident before they were accommodated by the local authority was Oxfordshire, and therefore Oxfordshire should be the designated local authority.

HHJ Vincent found that, having regard to all the circumstances, she was satisfied that the children were placed with their grandparents in accordance with s22C(6) Children Act, and therefore had continued to be provided with accommodation by Oxfordshire within the meaning of section 105(6).

Saying the care orders must be made to Oxfordshire, she added: “I have sympathy with the local authority and guardian's view that on a welfare and practical level it would be far better for social workers local to the children to assist with housing, with finding parenting courses, arranging family group conferences, and other meetings for looked after children, facilitating contact and generally building relationships with the family.

“I accept that if this work is carried out by a social worker travelling two and a half hours from Oxfordshire for every visit that would represent a poor use of already stretched resource and a risk that the social worker would not be able to provide the same level of support that she would if she were closer.”

But she noted that in some cases, for example a recent Dorset/Wakefield one, the two competing local authorities came to an arrangement whereby Dorset (designated but not local) funded Wakefield (local but not designated) to carry out work on its behalf.

"It may be helpful if the parties in this case were able to explore the possibility of similar arrangements," the judge said.

HHJ Vincent added that she was not satisfied that there was any basis for suggesting this case was so exceptional that she should exercise his discretion so as to disapply the disregard period and make an order to Rotherham.

Mark Smulian