Special guardianship

Special guardianship

A special guardianship order (SGO) is a private law order made under section 14A(1) of the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989) that appoints one or more individuals to be a child's special guardian. An SGO confers parental responsibility on the special guardian.

SGO's have been described as a 'half-way house' between residence orders (now a child arrangements order regulating a child's living arrangements), and adoption orders.

An SGO is an alternative to adoption in cases where adoption may not be the best solution for a child who cannot live with their birth parents such as older children in long-term care who might wish to retain some legal ties with their birth families and who don't want to be adopted.

A parent cannot be a special guardian.

The effects of a special guardianship order

A special guardian acquires parental responsibility for the child. Subject to any other order in force relating to the child under ChA 1989 and subject to certain exceptions that are prescribed in ChA 1989 parental responsibility can be exercised by a special guardian to

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Family News

Monumental Supreme Court decision on matrimonialisation and sharing principle (Standish v Standish)

Family analysis: The Supreme Court’s much-anticipated judgment confirms unequivocally that the sharing principle does not apply to non-matrimonial property. Sharing of matrimonial property will usually be 50:50, though there may be a departure from equal division where justified. Non-matrimonial property typically has either a pre-marital origin, or, where it is received during the currency of the marriage, an external source (eg an inheritance). Title to an asset is expressly not determinative as to whether that asset is or is not matrimonial. Though non-matrimonial property may become matrimonial (ie ‘matrimonialisation’) this will depend on how the parties have been dealing with the asset and whether, over time, they have been treating that asset as shared between them. The concept of matrimonialisation is to be applied neither ‘widely’ nor ‘narrowly’ (contrary to what the Court of Appeal had held)—again, the enquiry should focus on how the parties have dealt with the asset. Where an asset is transferred from one spouse to another with the intention to save tax (as had occurred in the case), this will not normally show that the asset is being treated as shared. The Supreme Court ultimately upheld the decision to dismiss the wife’s appeal, though it did not wholly agree with the Court of Appeal’s reasoning. Pursuant to that decision (made on the sharing basis) the wife would be provided with circa £25m of the total assets figure of circa £132.6m, being half of the matrimonial assets figure of £50.48m. David Wilkinson, solicitor at Slater Heelis, considers the judgment.

View Family by content type :

Popular documents