The News Page
This page displays all news that affects the legal world ..
Family News |
![]() |
| Posted by Administrator (admin) on Feb 27 2008 at 2:43 PM |
| Latest News >> |
AA shared residence order was made in respect of a child whose parents had divorced. The order envisaged that the child would spend three quarters of his time with his mother and one quarter with his father. The father applied for LA accommodation on the basis that he had a priority need. Was the LA obliged to rehouse?
A priority need arises where the applicant has dependent children who reside or might reasonably be expected to reside with them. The CA decided:
A LA is required to satisfy itself of the reasonableness of an applicant’s expectation that dependant children will come to live with the applicant. An s8 CA 1989 order is not dispositive of the question whether or not a dependant child might reasonably be expected to reside with the applicant for accommodation.If an order is made, it was difficult to see that there would be room for the LA to do other than follow the decision of the family court.The LA would not be entitled to take scarcity of resources into account. Cramped quarters may be suitable where residence is limited. Where an order has been made by consent and it is apparent that the court has not considered the capability of the applicant to meet the accommodation needs of the child, the LA is obliged to consider afresh the reasonableness of the applicant's expectation. if it decides it is not reasonable then the parents should return to the family court so that the court can reconsider the consent order.
See Holmes v Holmes [2007] All ER (D) 136 (Oct). [2007] NU 1571. (The Practical Lawyer)
Back
