Wednesday, February 04, 2009

Holmes-Moorhouse v LB Richmond upon Thames: Family Courts should deal with the situation as it is

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.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Thank you for taking the time to comment on this post. Constructive comments are always welcome, even if they do not coincide with my views! Please note, however, that comments will be removed or not published if I consider that:
* They are not relevant to the subject of this post; or
* They are (or are possibly) defamatory; or
* They breach court reporting rules; or
* They contain derogatory, abusive or threatening language; or
* They contain 'spam' advertisements (including links to any commercial websites).
Please also note that I am unable to give advice.

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.