SJ & Anor, R (on the application of) v Surrey County Council

Whether a child is a “child in need” under Children Act 1989, section 17, depends on the need for local-authority services, rather than need in the ordinary sense. Relevant needs may be met by family members or other agencies. The assessment involves value judgment and reasonable views may differ.

The local authority must assess the child’s current circumstances. A previous finding that the child was in need does not make a later assessment irrational. Judicial review is confined to recognised public-law grounds, including Wednesbury unreasonableness and apparent bias. The court must not substitute its own assessment for that of the local authority.

The claim concerned care and support provided by Surrey County Council to two siblings living with their adult sister. The proceedings initially challenged the refusal to accommodate the children under section 20 and the level of support provided under section 17 of the Children Act 1989.

By the final hearing, the section 20 issue and all claims concerning the older sibling had fallen away. The remaining issue was whether the Council’s current decision that SJ, then aged 17, was not a child in need was unlawful because it was unreasonable or affected by apparent bias.

1. Claim dismissed. The Council’s current assessment that SJ was not a child in need was within the range of reasonable responses open to it and was not affected by apparent bias.
2. Under section 17(10) of the Children Act 1989, the statutory question is whether the child’s relevant health or development needs are unlikely to be adequately maintained, or are likely to be significantly impaired, without local-authority services. A child may be in need in the ordinary sense without being in need in the statutory sense if the relevant needs are met by family members or other agencies. The concept of need involves value judgment, and reasonable decision-makers may differ.
3. The statutory decision belongs initially to the local authority. The court’s role is supervisory. It must apply the Wednesbury standard and must not substitute its own assessment for that of the authority, particularly where Parliament has entrusted the evaluation to officers with relevant expertise.
4. The assessment is directed to the child’s present circumstances. The fact that SJ had previously been assessed as a child in need did not make the later assessment irrational. Her placement had become stable, her sibling had moved out, she was older and doing well at school, and her family and other support were available. The case was not governed by legitimate expectation.
5. The Council was entitled to conclude that SJ’s emotional needs were met by her family, school counselling and available youth services. Her wishes for additional spending and lifestyle support were properly capable of being treated as wants rather than statutory needs. Tight household finances and some debt did not necessarily establish statutory need where the household could adequately provide for her health and development.
6. The Council was also entitled to assess the available evidence using reasonable probabilities and to exercise some scepticism about incomplete financial information or potential family contributions. Those matters did not establish apparent bias. The applications for substantive relief and, insofar as necessary, permission were dismissed.