1 For a recent pertinent example of such scrutiny see M. (R. on the application of) v Hammersmith and Fulham LBC [2006] EWCA Civ 917, a case involving a 17-year-old girl with an offending history who applied to her Council for housing assistance after being required to leave her mother's home. See also K. (R. on the application of ) v Manchester City Council [2006] EWHC 3164 (Admin) which will be addressed in a forthcoming Commentary.

2 J.S.'s case was featured in The Guardian (`Society') 29 August 2007 and was celebrated in The Howard, Autumn 2007.

3 There is, of course, a substantial body of case law relating to the interpretation of Part 3 of the 1989 Act, prominently H. (R. on the application of) v Wandsworth Council [2007] EWHC 1082 (Admin), which the judges in the Sutton litigation identified as of considerable assistance in reaching their conclusions.

4 As illustrated by M. (note 1 above), a young person who presents to a local authority as homeless is not necessarily a `child in need', this being an issue combining fact and law. The Court of Appeal determined that M. (who had at no stage been in care) was properly dealt with as `in priority need' under the provisions of HA 1996 ss.188—189 and, potentially, s.193 (longer term provision of housing), despite her unsettled childhood and troubled life and the Appeal Court's description of her as `a young woman who needs all the support she can get'. The Court emphasized that its judgement `should not be read as relieving local authorities of their obligations under CA 1989 Part 3' to identify and assist children in need. The complexities of determining the appropriate basis for provision of help have been addressed in detail in Framework for the Assessment of Children in Need and their Families (Department of Health, 2000) and Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister/Department of Health, 2002).

5 Specified by CA 1989 s.17(6), as amended by the Adoption and Children Act 2002. See ensuing Local Authority Circular (2003) 13 Guidance on Accommodating Children in Need and their Families.

6 As clarified in H. (note 3 above) an authority under a s.20(1) duty cannot claim to be acting under s17 instead and thus purport to `squeeze out' the operation of the former.

7 Stanley Burnton J. had noted the judgement in Re C. (Secure Accommodation: Bail) [1994] 2FLR 922 in which a child who had been bailed subject to a condition of residence as directed by the local authority was held to be a `looked after' child. He distinguished that case on the basis that the child in Re C. had been accommodated in a children's home and that in itself had qualified her as `looked after'. In Re C. the child had sought to challenge the basis for her `looked after' status as that had been used by the local authority to place her in secure accommodation under CA 1989 s.25.

8 Safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children and young persons in custody, July 2004. At point of issue this circular was scheduled to be cancelled on 31 March 2006.

9 The Court of Appeal did not consider it necessary in reaching its conclusion to determine the legal significance of the provision in s.20(6) requiring a local authority to ascertain the child's wishes and feelings. However, Arden LJ commented that she did not think this subsection and the associated guidance in LAC (2003) 13 indicate that a child's wishes can be used to displace a duty otherwise arising; there is simply a requirement to take account of the child's wishes.

Legal Commentary: Accommodation,Services and Support: Local Authority Responsibilities under the Children Act 1989

Abstract

Get full access to this article