Not for the first time, Nearly Legal has drawn my attention to the case of Holmes-Moorhouse v LB Richmond upon Thames, this time as it reaches the House of Lords. To recap, the case concerns whether a shared residence order meant that a child was ‘reasonably expected’ to be resident with both parents following a divorce, so as to confer priority need in a homeless application. As Nearly Legal states, the Court of Appeal said that, in certain circumstances, it might well mean just that, and that the Local Authority should intervene in the Children Act proceedings if it wished to argue the point. The House of Lords disagreed, and Baroness Hale stated that: "the family court should not use a residence order as a means of putting pressure upon a local housing authority to allocate their resources in a particular way despite all the other considerations which ... they have to take into account".
For further details, I recommend you read Nearly Legal's post.