Children who were subject to an interim care order but remained at home with their mother moved from one local authority area to another. The question was which one should have the care orders.
The mother was providing the accommodation, not the local authority, so s 105(6)(c) CA 1989 did not apply. The care order went to the local authority in which the child was ordinarily resident. Habitual or ordinary residence could be lost in a single day, but could not be gained elsewhere save following an appreciable period of time. The children, by moving from one area to another, ceased to be ordinarily resident in the ﬁ rst area but they had not been residing long enough in the second area to have acquired ordinary residence there. Therefore, the designated authority was the ﬁ rst one because that was the authority ‘within whose area the circumstances arose etc.’.