Judge rules on dispute between councils over designation after one-year-old child placed with maternal grandmother

In Birmingham City Council v CJH [2025] EWFC 173 (B), District Judge Parker concluded that there would be duplication of professionals and work involved with the family should Birmingham remain designated authority as the child, M, had moved to North Yorkshire to live with the maternal grandmother, her partner and two half-siblings (nine and five years old) who were subject to care orders in favour of North Yorkshire Council.

M was initially made subject to an interim care order in favour of Birmingham and placed in foster care.

District Judge Parker issued a final care order for the child in favour of the maternal grandmother and her partner and endorsed a plan for the mother to have contact with the children seven times a year.

However, a dispute arose between the two councils over who should be the designated local authority for M.

Birmingham argued that should it continue as the designated local authority, M and her family would have to deal with two local authorities at the same time.

It said that as M's grandmother also cares for her two half-siblings who are subject to care orders in favour of North Yorkshire, the family would have two separate social workers and two separate review mechanisms and have to interface with both local authorities at the same time.

This would duplicate work and professionals involved with the family and lead to management at a distance, Birmingham added.

Summarising Birmingham's position in the judgment, Parker J wrote: "Effectively, logic would suggest that there needs to be a one stop shop, so to speak, in relation to all the children now in the grandparent's care, by way of support services and review mechanisms, particularly in relation to contact, which will be in the Yorkshire area so far as mother is concerned, and indeed, the review of that contact, which, incidentally, is on parity with the older children.

"It would provide joined up thinking in relation to those contact arrangements for all of the children under one umbrella as opposed to potential disjointed views in relation to the review of contact for one child in isolation to the other two."

North Yorkshire, however, disagreed.

In handing down his decision, Parker J said he was "inexorably led" to the conclusion that North Yorkshire should be the designated authority.

He said: "To have two local authorities involved with this family, and I have not heard what the maternal grandmother has to say about it, in my view, would be most unfortunate.

"It would basically double the number of professionals, provide logistical difficulties in relation to oversight at a distance, duplicity of work, no joined up thinking in relation to the family as a whole, duplicity of support services, lack of coordination, and it is difficult to see any positives in a position whereby Birmingham Local Authority remain the designated authority, following the conclusion of the proceedings, in a case where the child will reside in North Yorkshire."

He added: "Accordingly, I have reached the conclusion and record it as an exceptional case, having regard to the legislation and following [Re G, (Designation of Local Authority) [2024] EWCA 1565] that it is the local authority in the area where the child ordinarily lives which is best placed to monitor the needs of the child, oversee the care plan, negotiate and review contact and take action if it is required."

Adam Carey