Key Facts
- •17-year-old V, previously subject to an interim care order (ICO), wants to return home after the ICO lapsed.
- •Local authority seeks a wardship order under the inherent jurisdiction to maintain V's current foster placement.
- •Serious, undetermined allegations of abuse against V's parents are pending in separate care proceedings.
- •V is separately represented and expresses a clear wish to return home.
- •V's current accommodation is voluntary, not imposed by the court.
Legal Principles
Section 100 of the Children Act 1989 restricts the inherent jurisdiction in relation to children.
Children Act 1989
Leave to apply under the inherent jurisdiction can only be granted if there is no other way to achieve the desired result and there is reasonable cause to believe the child will suffer significant harm without the order.
Children Act 1989, s.100(4)
A wardship order cannot be used to place a child into care or accommodation against their will.
Children Act 1989, s.100(2)(b)
Section 20(11) of the Children Act 1989 prevents parents from removing a child from accommodation if a care order existed prior to the child's 17th birthday and the child wishes to remain.
Children Act 1989, s.20(11)
The court considers the child's wishes and views when exercising the inherent jurisdiction.
Re E (a child) [2012] EWCA Civ 1773; A City Council v. LS and others [2019] EWHC 1384 (Fam); Re Q (a child) [2019] EWHC 512 (Fam); Re M (jurisdiction: wardship) [2016] EWCA Civ 937
Outcomes
Leave to apply for a wardship order was refused.
The order would require V's involuntary accommodation, contrary to her wishes and s.100(2)(b) of the Children Act 1989. The court acknowledged the serious allegations against the parents but prioritized V's right to determine her own accommodation.