Legal Commentary: Accommodation, Services and Support: Local Authority Responsibilities under the Children Act 1989
| DOI | 10.1177/1473225407087043 |
| Author | Nigel Stone |
| Published date | 01 April 2008 |
| Date | 01 April 2008 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
L E G A L C O M M E N T A R Y
Copyright © 2008 The National Association for Youth Justice
Published by SAGE Publications (Los Angeles, London, New Delhi and Singapore)
www.sagepublications.com
ISSN 1473–2254, Vol 8(1): 75–82
DOI: 10.1177/1473225407087043
Legal Commentary
Accommodation, Services and Support:
Local Authority Responsibilities under
the Children Act 1989
Nigel Stone
Correspondence: Nigel Stone, School of Social Work and Psychosocial Sciences,
Elizabeth Fry Building, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, UK.
Email: n.stone@uea.ac.uk
The Courts in England and Wales have been required to give relatively little attention
to the interface between the needs of young offenders and the provisions of the Children
Act (CA) 1989, notwithstanding the importance of that legislation in meeting the wel-
fare needs of remanded and convicted adolescents with well-established problems in
accessing resources that can enable their successful transition to independence.1 Those
provisions can offer greater and longer assistance than the alternative ‘homelessness’
responsibilities falling upon local authorities under the Housing Act (HA) 1996.
Recent litigation involving the experience of a girl (J.S.)2 facing family relationship
strains and homelessness while on remand and subsequently on release from custody –
dealt with fi rst in the Administrative Court and then on appeal (S. (R. on the application
of ) v London Borough of Sutton [2007] EWHC 1196 (Admin) (May 2007) and [2007]
EWCA Civ 790 (July 2007)) – illustrates the complexities of Part 3 of the Act (‘Local
Authority Support for Children and Families’). It also points up the responsibilities of
local authorities to provide eligible young offenders with accommodation, planning and
support into young adulthood through Children’s Services, rather than sidestepping
their duty of care on the assumption that those needs will be catered for by Housing
Departments and/or Youth Offending Teams.3
The Period Prior to Sentence
At age 15, J.S., then living within the London Borough of Sutton (LBS), had committed
a robbery, the circumstances of which are not of signifi cance in this context. The Youth
Court committed her on bail to the Crown Court for trial. Prior to her appearance
before the Crown Court she came before the Youth Court again, shortly after her 16th
birthday in late July 2005, on a further allegation, this time of assaulting her mother
occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH). In light of the evident problems she was
76
Youth Justice 8(1)
experiencing with that parent the Youth Court remanded her to local authority care. Her
remand status was varied in the following month, September 2005, and she was granted
bail to enable her to reside with her father in Surrey, the terms of bail being that she ‘live
and sleep each night as directed by Social Services’, refl ecting wording that appears to
have been proposed by Sutton Youth Offending Team (YOT). However, that arrange-
ment proved short-lived. Within hours her father had informed the YOT that she
could no longer stay with him, in light of the considerable tensions between J.S. and his
cohabitee. A YOT worker collected her and took her to the home of Ms W., a family
friend living in Surrey with whom she had stayed on an earlier occasion while subject to
bail in these proceedings.
In October 2005, when J.S. came before the Crown Court in respect of the robbery, she
was apparently remanded to secure accommodation but she appears to have remained
living with Ms W. and, in November 2005, the Crown Court varied her remand by
requiring her to reside at Ms W.’s address where she remained until January 2006 when
she was sentenced by the Crown Court to 24 months detention and training order
(DTO). Shortly thereafter she incurred a concurrent DTO of 12 months duration at
the Youth Court for ABH. She was located at a secure training centre (STC) until her
release in late November 2006.
The Provisions of the Children Act: ‘In Need’, ‘Looked After’,
‘Relevant’, ‘Eligible’
Pausing to relate this history to the relevant provisions of CA 1989, it was uncontested
during the ensuing judicial review proceedings that J.S. was ‘in need’ within the terms
of s.17(10) of the Act, placing LBS under a general duty ‘to safeguard and promote her
welfare … by providing a range and level of services appropriate’ to her needs (s.17(1)).4
With particular respect to accommodation, that resource can be provided under s.175
but CA 1989 s.20(1) specifi es:
Every local authority shall provide accommodation for any child in need within their
area who appears to them to require accommodation as a result of:
(a) there being no person who has parental responsibility for him;
(b) his being lost or having been abandoned; or
(c) the person who has been caring for him being prevented (whether or not permanently,
and for whatever reason) from providing him with suitable accommodation or care.6
A child who is provided with accommodation (for a continuous period...
To continue reading
Request your trial