This one took me quite a few reads to make sense of (and it is quite possible that I’m still not there)
I THINK that it is largely fact-specific, but the Court of Appeal do look at whether the wording of ‘unlikely’ in s17(10) Children Act 1989
“For the purposes of this Part a child shall be taken to be in need if—
(a) he is unlikely to achieve or maintain, or to have the opportunity of achieving or maintaining, a reasonable standard of health or development without the provision for him of services by a local authority under this Part;
(b) his health or development is likely to be significantly impaired, or further impaired, without the provision for him of such services; or
(c) he is disabled
should be looked at in the same sort of context as ‘likelihood’ is treated by the Courts in s31 threshold (i.e a risk that cannot sensibly be ignored)
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2025/4.html
TW, R (On the Application Of) v Essex County Council [2025] EWCA Civ 4 (20 January 2025)
Basically, TW had been a 16 year old child living with his stepfather and that placement broke down. He approached the Local Authority for assistance and they helped him liaise with Housing and get accommodation. He later judicially reviewed the Local Authority for not treating him as a s17 Children Act ‘child in need’ at the time that his placement with stepfather broke down, which would have meant that the accommodation provided was under s20 of the Children Act 1989 in turn making him ‘looked after’ and in turn providing him with support under the Leaving Care provisions.
The Local Authority said that they had carried out an assessment at the time as to whether TW was a ‘child in need’ and made a lawful determination that he was not and that they had followed the statutory guidance.
I think that this paragraph is significant :-
In general, where a person aged between 16 and 18 seeks accommodation, the LA would consider whether they are a child in need and if satisfied that they are, would provide that accommodation under s20 rather than signposting them to Housing BUT where the young person is given information and decides that they do not WANT to be looked after then they would not be s20 accommodated against their wishes.
The national guidance says this :-
53….”Where there is no immediate threat of homelessness intervention may be more appropriately led by early help services, whereas if there is an imminent threat of homelessness or if the young person is actually homeless, a child in need assessment must be carried out and the child accommodated under section 20.”
It was Mr Moffett’s submission that the statutory guidance was encouraging local authorities to do what the local authority did in this case. He submitted that the logic of the appellant’s argument was that the statutory guidance was unlawful, but the issue of legality was not before the Court. Mr Purchase conceded that early intervention to prevent a child becoming a child in need was entirely legitimate, but submitted that the guidance was misleading if it meant that early intervention did not amount to the provision of services under s.17(10) in circumstances where it was established that, without those services, there was a real possibility that the child would suffer significant impairment to his health or development. If on the facts a child’s circumstances fall under s.17(10), any services provided to him by the local authority were provided to him as a child in need.
Mr Moffett observed that, in one sense, every child is a child in need of support from someone. The definition of child in need under s.17(10), however, is confined to those children who are unlikely to achieve or maintain a reasonable standard of health or development without the provision of services under Part III of the Act: R (P) v Secretary of State for the Home Dept, R (Q) v Secretary of State for the Home Dept [2001] EWCA Civ 1151 at paragraph 95. In carrying out the assessment, the local authority is obliged to take into account support otherwise available: R (VC) v Newcastle City Council, supra, per Munby LJ at paragraph 30. Mr Moffett submitted that, in carrying out that exercise, there was no conceptual reason to exclude support which might be provided by other agencies or by the local authority under other provisions.
In effect, as the homelessness was foreseeable but not imminent (he was ‘sofa surfing’ with friends – staying for short periods of time at the homes of others) the LA were providing services by way of Early Help to prevent a situation where TW would actually become homeless, and he was not on their assessment a child in need.
The Court of Appeal looked at the authorities on determining whether a child is a ‘child in need’
The clearest statement of the law relating to the assessment of whether a child is a child in need is by Baroness Hale in R (A) v Croydon LBC, supra. The issue in that case was whether each of the claimants, who had sought asylum on arrival in this country, was under the age of 18 and therefore capable of being a child in need under s.17(10) and therefore entitled to be accommodated under s.20(1). At paragraphs 26 and 27, Baroness Hale drew a distinction between the assessment of, on the one hand, whether a child was a child in need and, on the other hand, whether the person was a child at all.
“26. The 1989 Act draws a clear and sensible distinction between different kinds of question. The question whether a child is “in need” requires a number of different value judgments. What would be a reasonable standard of health or development for this particular child? How likely is he to achieve it? What services might bring that standard up to a reasonable level? What amounts to a significant impairment of health or development? How likely is that? What services might avoid it? Questions like this are sometimes decided by the courts in the course of care or other proceedings under the Act. Courts are quite used to deciding them upon the evidence for the purpose of deciding what order, if any, to make. But where the issue is not, what order should the court make, but what service should the local authority provide, it is entirely reasonable to assume that Parliament intended such evaluative questions to be determined by the public authority, subject to the control of the courts on the ordinary principles of judicial review. Within the limits of fair process and “Wednesbury reasonableness” there are no clear cut right or wrong answers.
- But the question whether a person is a “child” is a different kind of question. There is a right or a wrong answer. It may be difficult to determine what that answer is. The decision-makers may have to do their best on the basis of less than perfect or conclusive evidence. But that is true of many questions of fact which regularly come before the courts. That does not prevent them from being questions for the courts rather than for other kinds of decision-makers.”
The principle that the evaluation of whether a child is a child in need is a matter for professional judgment by the local authority is reflected in the National Guidance. Paragraph 3.16 provides:
“Determining who is in need and the extent of any needs requires professional judgment by social workers, informed by consultation with other professionals familiar with the circumstances of the individual young person and their family.”
The Court of Appeal decided that TW’s situation ‘might’ have led a Local Authority to conclude that he was a child in need but looking at their decision-making and the initial judgment about that, they considered that the decision of the LA and the Judge that TW was not a child in need was reasonable and not irrational.
I accept that the language of s.17(10) is “forward-looking”. The assessment of what is likely or unlikely necessarily involves looking to the future. But SM’s assessment was manifestly focused in that direction. The key findings cited above are for the most part all forward-looking. Her finding about TW’s current sleeping arrangement was that “whilst this is ok in the short term, it is not an ideal long term arrangement”. Her answers to the question “What will make things safer?” were all directed to future provision, as were her recommendations. Her evaluation, accepted by the decision-maker, was that TW’s future needs could be met through accessing housing via EYPP with additional support from Family Solutions without the provision of services by the local authority under Part III of the Act.
The provision of services to prevent a child becoming a child in need is expressly prescribed in the National Guidance. It was plainly open to the local authority, following the Guidance and in particular paragraph 3.2, to conclude that TW fell into the category of a young person needing early help. Although he had a range of needs and specific vulnerabilities, there was no “imminent threat of homelessness”. He needed support to “reduce the chance of a problem getting worse” and the local authority was able to coordinate early help services to meet those concerns. It was therefore entirely rational for the local authority to conclude that there was no requirement for services to be provided under Part III of the Act.
So far as Mr Purchase’s other submissions are concerned, I am doubtful whether there is anything to be gained from the proposition that the word “unlikely” in s.17(10) should be interpreted by reference to the meaning of “likelihood” applied by family courts when considering whether the threshold for intervention under s.31(2) of the Act is crossed. It would not be helpful to introduce a gloss into the clear statutory language of s.17(10) which social workers have to follow on a daily basis. In any event, there was nothing in Mr Purchase’s submission on this issue which persuaded me that the judge had fallen into error.
I do not read the judge’s observation at paragraph 71 of his judgment – that the words “unlikely” and “reasonable” in s.17(10)(a) suggest that the test “will not be lightly met” – as indicating that he was applying too high a hurdle. Furthermore, as is clear from the rest of that paragraph, he was very properly following the guidance given by Munby LJ in R (VC) v Newcastle, which in turn was based on the statement by this Court in R (P) v Secretary of State for the Home Dept, supra. As this Court said in the latter case (at paragraph 95):
“the distinguishing feature of a ‘child in need’ for this purpose is not that he has needs – all children have needs which others must supply until they are old enough to look after themselves – but that those needs will not be properly met without the provision of local authority social services.”
In my view the judge was entitled to reject the arguments that the fact that SM had discussed s.20 accommodation with TW on 10 June 2021, and described the payment of £30 to him on 25 June 2021 as “s.17 cash”, indicated that he was in reality being treated as a child in need. The fact that it was the local authority who had entered the contractual arrangement with EYPP and referred TW to that agency for accommodation did not mean it was treating him as a child in need. The support subsequently provided by the local authority was via the Family Solutions team, not under s.17. On the totality of the evidence, and in particular the very clear terms of the social work assessment and the manager’s decision, the judge was entitled to conclude that the local authority treated TW as not being a child in need.
It was plainly open to the manager to conclude on the evidence that TW’s needs would not be met without the provision of services under Part III and that he was therefore a child in need. But the appellant has fallen well short of demonstrating that that was the only rational conclusion open to the manager. In those circumstances, the judge was right to dismiss the application for judicial review.
From TW’s point of view, it is of course very unfortunate that he was not designated a child in need because he is not entitled to be treated as a “former relevant child” and receive the benefits which would flow from that status. As Baroness Hale warned in R (M) v Hammersmith and Fulham LBC, there is plainly a risk that some cash-strapped local authorities may seek to avoid their responsibilities under Part III of the Act. But there is no basis for thinking that this local authority has taken that course in this case. Its decision was reached rationally after a careful assessment and was plainly in line with national guidance.
suesspiciousminds 