R (G) v Barnet London Borough Council

The House considered the scope of the "general duty" in section 17(1) of the Children Act 1989. The court held that section 17(1) imposes an overarching duty on local authorities to provide a range and level of services appropriate to children in need in their area, and requires reasonable steps to identify and assess individual children's needs, but it does not create an absolute, enforceable right to have every assessed need met irrespective of resources. The court held that assessment duties are required and enforceable, but responses to assessed needs are subject to reasonableness and the lawful exercise of local authority discretion; cost and resource considerations may be relevant to what is "appropriate". Section 23(6) was not to be read as imposing an obligation on the authority to provide accommodation for parents. The Lambeth policy of routinely threatening to accommodate children alone required adjustment in its application to very young children or those who would be significantly upset by separation.

This set of appeals concerned three judicial review challenges to decisions by local social services authorities about accommodation for children in need. Two appeals (G and W) raised whether a local authority may lawfully offer to accommodate a child alone rather than the child and parent when housing both would not involve significant additional cost; the third (A) involved disabled children whose assessed needs required re-housing.

Nature of the applications:

• G and W: challenge to local authority practice of offering to accommodate the child alone (or to place the child in foster care) rather than provide accommodation for child and mother when the parent was ineligible for housing or intentionally homeless.
• A: application for a mandatory order requiring the authority to provide suitable permanent accommodation in line with the assessed needs of two autistic children.

Procedural history: Each case reached the Court of Appeal (see [2001] EWCA Civ 540; [2001] EWCA Civ 1624; [2002] EWCA Civ 613) and was then brought to the House of Lords.

Issues framed:

• Does section 17(1) Children Act 1989 impose an enforceable duty on a local authority to assess and then meet the specific needs of each individual child in need?
• Can a local authority, in discharging its duties under Part III, lawfully insist on accommodating a child alone as distinct from accommodating the child together with the parent?
• Does section 23(6) require authorities to provide accommodation for parents to enable a looked-after child to live with them?

Reasoning and outcome: The Appellate Committee concluded that section 17(1) imposes a general duty extending to the need to take reasonable steps to assess individual children, but it is not an absolute obligation to meet every assessed need irrespective of context: the duty is to provide an appropriate range and level of services and what is "appropriate" may depend on nature of need, practicability and resources. Assessment obligations may be enforced, but the adequacy of the authority's response is assessed by conventional public law standards and the statute’s wording. Section 23(6) was construed as concerned with placement arrangements for a child who is being looked after, not as imposing a duty to provide housing for parents. The House dismissed the appeals in G and W but held Lambeth's blanket policy needed adjustment in relation to very young children or those who would be significantly upset by separation; in A the House allowed the appeal in part by remitting the matter for further consideration in the Administrative Court and emphasised the duty to co-operate with housing authorities under section 27 and the later section 213A regime.

Allowed in part. The House held that section 17(1) imposes a general duty on local authorities that includes a requirement to take reasonable steps to assess individual children's needs, but it does not create an absolute, indivisible duty to meet every assessed need regardless of resources. Section 23(6) does not oblige a local authority to provide housing for parents. The appeals by G and W were dismissed; A's appeal was allowed in part and remitted to the Administrative Court for further consideration, with guidance that housing and social services departments should cooperate and that blanket policies of accommodating children alone need adjustment where separation would significantly harm the child.

The matters reached the House of Lords after earlier proceedings in the High Court and the Court of Appeal. Key interlocutory and appellate decisions include Hooper J's quashing decision in the Administrative Court ([2000] EWHC Admin 5), and Court of Appeal decisions ([2001] EWCA Civ 540; [2001] EWCA Civ 1624; [2002] EWCA Civ 613). The House reviewed and clarified the legal meaning of section 17(1) and related provisions before disposing of the appeals.