Secure accommodation and deprivation of liberty

Section 25 of the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989) (in England) and section 119 of the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 (SSW(W)A 2014) (in Wales) restrict the ability of local authorities to place and keep children in secure accommodation. Secure accommodation orders are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

See Practice Notes: Secure accommodation—general principles and Secure accommodation—procedure.

Without an order

Under ChA 1989, s 25 a child may be kept in secure accommodation without a court order for a maximum of 72 hours, whether or not consecutive, in any period of 28 days. Before doing so, the local authority must be satisfied that the statutory criteria are met and must consider the child's welfare—the welfare of the child will be a consideration of great importance, but is not paramount for the purposes of ChA 1989, s 25. The provisions of ChA 1989 (in England), and SSW(W)A 2014 (in Wales) also enable the local authority to act in order to protect the public from serious injury, even where inconsistent with promoting and

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