Local authority duties to children

Copyright © 2025 LexisNexis

Local authority duties towards children looked after by them

A child who is either subject to a care order (including an interim care order), or provided with accommodation by the local authority under section 20 of the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989), is a ‘looked after’ child. A local authority has two main duties to any child who is looked after:

  1. •

    to safeguard and promote the child’s welfare, and

  2. •

    to make such services available for children as are reasonable in the child’s case

If a child is going to become looked after, whether under a voluntary arrangement or otherwise (or if not practicable, within ten days of becoming looked after), the local authority must prepare a care plan.

A local authority has to provide all children looked after by them with accommodation and maintain them as is necessary, and there is an order of precedence as to where a child should live.

See Practice Note: Local authority duties towards children looked after by them.

Duty to provide advice and assistance for certain children and young persons

Certain children

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Existing user? Sign-in TAKE A FREE TRIAL
Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Family News

Acquiring parental responsibility under section 4(1)(a) of the Children Act 1989—non-biological fathers (KL v BA)

Family analysis: In KL v BA the court considered whether the effect of a declaration of non-parentage in respect of a man who was not married to a child's mother and was named on the child's birth certificate as the father, but whom subsequent genetic testing showed was not the child's biological father, was to render his putative acquisition of parental responsibility under section 4(1)(a) of the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989) void ab initio, or whether he had and retained parental responsibility that could only be removed by order of the court. Aimee Jones, solicitor at Sternberg Reed considers the decision.

Family weekly highlights—6 February 2025

This week's edition of Family weekly highlights includes details of guidance from the Family Justice Council for legal practitioners working with neurodivergent users of the family justice system, additional funding for the pathfinder courts pilot scheme and the extension of the family mediation voucher scheme. Recent judgments including the Court of Appeal’s decision to reverse the anonymisation of family court judges, consideration of overseas adoption and maintenance pending suit and legal service payment orders are also considered. Three new Practice Notes on financial provision for children over 18 are also set out.

Habeas corpus in Care proceedings (Care orders and the limits of habeas corpus (The Father v Worcestershire County Council)

Family analysis: The Supreme Court was concerned with the question of whether habeas corpus can be used as a remedy where children are placed in foster care via a care order and whether the making of a care order results in ‘detention’. On considering the primary legislation relating to care orders and the legislative regime which establishes the Family Court, neither contain clear words excluding habeas corpus, however the Supreme Court decided that there are other reasons why habeas corpus cannot be used to challenge a care order and highlighted the appropriate routes of appeal. Teertha Gupta KC at 4PB examines the issues.

Family court judges’ anonymisation reversed by Court of Appeal (Tickle & Summers v BBC and others)

Family analysis: The murder of ten-year-old Sara Sharif by her father and step-mother continues to dominate the UK news. Following her death, journalists (Louise Tickle and Hannah Summers) and major news organisations sought disclosure of documents and information from the historical Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989) proceedings concerning Sara and her siblings, including the relevant judges’ names. Despite the judges involved in those proceedings having made no application in respect of their own anonymity, Mr Justice Williams nonetheless included in his disclosure order a provision that their names were not to be published. The appeals against Williams J’s decision were successful on each of the three grounds advanced. He had lacked jurisdiction to order the judges’ anonymisation and there had been serious procedural irregularities owing to the lack of submissions and evidence on the anonymisation issue. The Court of Appeal also disapproved of the judge’s use of anecdotal material and his own experiences to try to shore up his judgment. Williams J was further criticised for his unfair treatment of the journalists and Channel 4. Publication of the judges’ names has now taken place in accordance with the Court of Appeal’s decision to ensure a short interval of seven days occurred during which time HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) was required to put in place any protective measures. David Wilkinson, solicitor at Slater Heelis, examines the issues.

View Family by content type :  
News
Practice notes
Precedents
Q&As

Popular documents

Adoption—placement orders

Adoption—placement ordersThis Practice Note sets out the requirements in relation to adoption placement orders, including steps to be taken prior to the application, who may apply for a placement order, procedure and the effect and duration of a placement order. It also provides guidance on the

Can an adult apply to revoke an adoption order that was made during their minority?

Can an adult apply to revoke an adoption order that was made during their minority?The adoption of a child severs all the child’s legal ties with their birth family and establishes a new legal relationship with the child’s adoptive family. The law does allow for applications to revoke an adoption

Can the court make an exclusion order (currently an exclusion requirement under Children Act 1989, s 38A)

Can the court make an exclusion order (currently an exclusion requirement under Children Act 1989, s 38A) when a final care order is made?In care proceedings, it is open to the court under section 38 of the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989) to make an interim care order (ICO) at an early stage of the

Public Law Working Group report—templates and checklists

Public Law Working Group report—templates and checklistsThis Practice Note provides information about the ‘Recommendations to achieve best practice in the child protection and family justice systems’ report (the PLWG report) prepared by the Public Law Working Group (PLWG) and endorsed by the
Adoption—placement orders

Adoption—placement orders

Adoption—placement ordersThis Practice Note sets out the requirements in relation to adoption placement orders, including steps to be taken prior to the application, who may apply for a placement order, procedure and the effect and duration of a placement order. It also provides guidance on the

Can an adult apply to revoke an adoption order that was made during their minority?

Can an adult apply to revoke an adoption order that was made during their minority?

Can an adult apply to revoke an adoption order that was made during their minority?The adoption of a child severs all the child’s legal ties with their birth family and establishes a new legal relationship with the child’s adoptive family. The law does allow for applications to revoke an adoption

Can the court make an exclusion order (currently an exclusion requirement under Children Act 1989, s 38A)

Can the court make an exclusion order (currently an exclusion requirement under Children Act 1989, s 38A)

Can the court make an exclusion order (currently an exclusion requirement under Children Act 1989, s 38A) when a final care order is made?In care proceedings, it is open to the court under section 38 of the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989) to make an interim care order (ICO) at an early stage of the

Public Law Working Group report—templates and checklists

Public Law Working Group report—templates and checklists

Public Law Working Group report—templates and checklistsThis Practice Note provides information about the ‘Recommendations to achieve best practice in the child protection and family justice systems’ report (the PLWG report) prepared by the Public Law Working Group (PLWG) and endorsed by the