ABSTRACT
Wardship and the inherent jurisdiction are like two layers of a Russian doll: wardship is the inner layer which fits inside the larger shell of the inherent jurisdiction, and the two sit side by side with the Children Act (CA) 1989 which has largely reduced the need for the other two jurisdictions by providing a flexible statutory framework for resolving issues about the upbringing of children, based on the wardship concept. In consequence where there is a statutory vehicle for achieving the desired result, neither wardship nor the inherent jurisdiction should be used, and this is also true where other statutes provide a regime to regulate other fields in which children may be involved, for example, immigration, where the High Court has refused to hear applications for wardship in cases where this would impact upon the powers of the Secretary of State under the Immigration Act (see Re F (A Minor) (Immigration: Wardship) [1990] Fam 125; R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p T [1995] 1 FLR 293).
