Azeem Suterwalla and Caoilfhionn Gallagher consider confusion in the law on “looked after” children
The recent decision of the Court of Appeal in R (G) v London Borough of Southwark [2008] EWCA Civ 877, [2008] All ER (D) 374 (Jul) concerned the exercise of a local authority's powers under ss 17 and 20 of the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989), the inter-relationship of those two sections, and the inter-relationship of ChA 1989 with the Housing Act 1988 (HA 1988). These issues are of importance because where a child is provided with s 20 accommodation, he becomes a “looked after child,” and if he remains looked after for a sufficient period further duties—triggered under the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000 and secondary legislation—fall upon a local authority and extend to his 21st birthday.
In G, the Court of Appeal's judgment was a split two-one decision with Lord Justice Rix providing a strong dissenting judgment. Lords Justices Longmore and Pill held that Southwark was entitled to draw a distinction between a child in need “requiring” accommodation on the one hand, and on the other, merely needing “help” in being
