Emergency procedures

Emergency prohibited steps and child arrangements orders

In certain circumstances it may be necessary to take urgent action in order to protect a child.

An application for any order under section 8 of the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989) (a prohibited steps order, specific issue order or child arrangements order) may be made without notice (ex parte). It should be noted however that an order will only be made in exceptional circumstances and on strong evidence. The Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955 set out the circumstances in which an application may be made without notice in FPR 2010, PD 18A, and this includes cases where there is exceptional urgency.

FPR 2010, PD 12B (the Child Arrangements Programme) sets out the procedural requirements to be followed for urgent and without notice applications for orders under ChA 1989, s 8. It provides that without notice orders should be made only exceptionally and where the specified criteria is met.

A without notice application for a prohibited steps order or child arrangements order should be made on Form C100 (if a free-standing application),

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

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Local Government News

Local Government weekly highlights—3 July 2025

This week's edition of Local Government weekly highlights includes: case analysis of Norton v London Borough of Haringey, in which the court considers whether an LHA can determine the suitability of offered accommodation if it has not prepared a lawful assessment under HA 1996, s 189A(1) and Surrey CC v R (BC), in which the Court of Appeal provides an overview of the time frames involved for bringing a claim for judicial review, confirmation of when an LA is duty-bound to accommodate a child under ChA 1989, s 20 and clarity on the alternative methods that can be employed to children not deemed a ‘child in need’ and not requiring accommodation. Case reports include Mother v LA (ALC and CoramBAAF intervening), in which the court ruled that it was not in the child’s best interest for the court to make sibling contact order while granting a placement for adoption order for the younger child as it might deter potential adopters; X and Y v BBC, in which the court found BBC’s application for access to documents from care proceedings to be aimed at issues outside scope of court’s functioning and should be pursued through other mechanisms; Anwar v Ealing LBC, in which the court affirmed that construction of a crossover outside the appellant property under HA 1980, s 184(11) was lawful as statutory provisions do not require consent of adjacent affected property owners; Smith v Great Yarmouth Magistrates Court, in which the court dismissed an appeal against obstruction of a highway under HA 1980, s 137 with the central issue being whether land adjacent to Vauxhall Bridge constituted a public highway under HA 1980, s 31; and North Warwickshire BC v The Defendants, in which the court allowed the application for a final injunction brought by the LA to restrict protest activities at Kingsbury Oil Terminal. It also includes latest coverage on the implementation of Awaab’s Law including the government’s consultation response and draft guidance. It includes further updates on Social housing, Public procurement, Education, Local government finance, Social care, Licensing and Planning.

Court of Appeal allows Council’s appeal in connection with Judicial Review claim (Surrey County Council v R (on the application of BC)

Local Government analysis: The Court of Appeal (‘Court’) allowed the appeal brought by Surrey County Council (SCC) in connection with the judge’s decision dated 15 December 2023 permitting a claim for judicial review and set aside the judge’s three declarations dated 20 December 2023. One of these declarations being that SCC owed a duty to accommodate BC, a 17-year-old child, under section 20 of the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989). The court determined the judge was wrong to conclude that a duty was owed under section 20 of the Act, or that BC was in fact being accommodated by SCC under section 20 and opined that the judge had erred in determining that SCC had acted with (Wednesbury) unreasonableness. This case provides a solid overview of the timeframes involved for bringing a claim for judicial review, confirmation of when a local authority is dutybound to accommodate a child under ChA 1989, s 20 and clarity on the alternative methods that can be employed to children not deemed a ‘child in need’ and not requiring accommodation. Written by Paul Ridout, partner at HCR Law.

Ofsted updates guidance on children's homes registration process assessment requirements

Ofsted has updated its guidance on registering children's homes in emergencies by removing the requirement to complete the 'fit/suitable person' assessment questionnaire at registration. As of 1 July 2025, suitability assessments are now conducted during the interview stage rather than via the initial questionnaire. This update affects the registration process for local authorities and providers registering children's home services under priority application procedures.

Scope of court’s powers under section 37(1) of the Children Act 1989 (Re E (Section 37 Direction))

Family analysis: This case considered the interpretation of section 37(1) of the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989) empowering the court to direct a local authority to carry out an investigation into the child’s circumstances, and the consequential power to make interim public law orders under ChA 1989, s 38(1)(b). The question arising on appeal was whether those powers extend to any child about whom the court becomes aware during the proceedings, or only to a child who is the subject of proceedings’. The Court of Appeal found that the language of ChA 1989, s 37(1) refers to proceedings in which a question arises for determination about the welfare of a child. The court therefore held that the judge was not entitled to make a ChA 1989, s 37 order in relation to non-subject children and that there was no power to make an interim public law order in respect of a non-subject child. In any event, the making of the interim supervision order had been procedurally unfair. Olivia Magennis, barrister at 1GC|Family Law, looks at the implications.

View Local Government by content type :

News