In Milton Keynes City Council v Ealing London Borough Council [2026] EWHC 2586 (Fam) Ms Justice Henke, sitting in the Family Division, determined Milton Keynes City Council’s application for declarations regarding the status of D following her mother’s death. The judgment highlights the impact of a Child Arrangements Order made in favour of a party on a child’s status as a looked-after child. The making of that private law order effectively determined the Applicant Local Authority’s responsibility for ongoing payments in respect of the child for the duration of a Special Guardianship Order.
The court found that it had jurisdiction to determine the freestanding application for declaratory relief under section 19 of the Senior Courts Act 1981, which survived the conclusion of the Children Act 1989 proceedings, and that it was appropriate to exercise that jurisdiction rather than require fresh proceedings in the Administrative Court.
On the substantive issue, the court found that, among other things, the duty under section 20(1) of the Children Act 1989 arose on 28 March 2024, when it appeared to the London Borough of Ealing that D required accommodation because there was no person with parental responsibility for her, and that Ealing played a major role in placing D with her maternal grandparents from that date. The court rejected Ealing’s submission that this was a private family arrangement outside its responsibility.
However, the court held that D’s “looked after” status ceased on 21 November 2024, when the Family Court granted a Child Arrangements Order to the maternal grandparents, conferring parental responsibility upon them and bringing the section 20(1) accommodation to an end. The court declined to make any declaration as to which authority was responsible for the Special Guardianship Support Plan, holding that this would follow automatically from the factual declaration made, in accordance with the Special Guardianship Support Regulations and Guidance.
The court accepted that its task was to take its own view of the evidence and determine, on the balance of probabilities, whether D appeared to require accommodation under section 20(1), applying the principles distilled by MacDonald J in Salford (No 2). Applying Southwark LBC v D, the court held that LBE could not sidestep this duty by labelling the arrangement private, particularly having failed to inform the grandmother properly of the implications and alternatives.
The court construed “within their area” in section 20(1) as encompassing both physical presence and ordinary residence, rejecting LBE’s narrower construction. Applying Re B (Looked After Child), the court found that the Child Arrangements Order of 21 November 2024 conferred parental responsibility and brought D’s looked-after status to an end.
The court declined to declare that LBE should have issued care proceedings, as this was a matter for local authority discretion rather than judicial mandate.
Professor Rob George KC, leading Daniel Sheridan, acted for the Applicant Local Authority, Milton Keynes City Council.
Ruth Cabeza acted for the Respondent Local Authority, Ealing.
