Accessing Support for Children and Young People with Disabilities

As an Independent Social Worker and the founder of Imara Social Work, I frequently hear about the systemic hurdles families face when trying to access essential support. Often, the first and most frustrating barrier is the 'threshold' argument. Families may find that they supposedly do not meet the criteria for an assessment, or for subsequent services. These are two distinct things. I have addressed the threshold for an assessment in an earlier article. This article will focus on the threshold for services.

Your Child is Not Eligible for Support

This is complex where children, young people and their families may find themselves unable to access the help that they desperately need. To provide some context, Councils set their own local eligibility criteria that essentially decides which children receive support. This means thresholds vary wildly by area, resulting in a postcode lottery. Furthermore, these thresholds are not always transparent; research (Bahri et al., 2020) suggests that over a third of Local Authorities (LAs) either do not publish them, despite a duty to do so, or use criteria so unfit for purpose they are effectively unlawful. 

These issues are compounded because Section 17(1) of the Children Act 1989 creates a general duty to provide ‘appropriate’ services, but ultimately LAs have a considerable amount of discretion in how they interpret that word. This is where the relationship with the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 (CSDPA) becomes essential.

The CSDPA was a landmark piece of legislation designed to address inequalities that people with disabilities faced. Though the language is outdated - referencing the provision for a 'wireless' for example - it created enforceable duties and references a list of necessary provision (such as as practical assistance at home, equipment, transport, meals, educational and recreational opportunities). Therefore, while the Children Act provides a general power to help, Section 2 of the CSDPA goes much further: once an LA is satisfied that a service is necessary, they have an absolute legal obligation to provide it.

Case law has clarified this point and made it clear that while a LA can take its resources into account when setting its general eligibility criteria, once they have assessed an individual child and agreed that a specific service is necessary to meet their needs, they cannot then refuse to provide it due to a lack of funds. Additionally, LAs should not apply blanket policies, such as capping the number of support hours based on a diagnosis rather than individual circumstances. For example, if you hear a council state they "only provide up to X hours" or "do not fund overnight short breaks," this is a red flag. LA’s should not be setting arbitrary ceiling limits. Again, the process must be led by the individual child’s needs; if the assessment shows a child needs 10 hours of support to maintain their welfare, providing 5 hours based on a local policy is a breach of statutory duty.

The Law Commission’s 2025 project has addressed these points, and has made a number of recommendations to tackle the 'patchwork' of law and its application. Most significantly they recommend that there should be a unified legal framework within the Children Act and a national eligibility threshold. This aims to create a fairer and needs-based system. However, the Commission’s remit is limited and it cannot reform Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) law, which remains a separate, complex topic. However it is hopeful to see that change maybe on the horizon, and we await the government’s interim response due in March 2026.

References:

• Bahri, P., Clements, L., Aiello, A. L. and Hutchinson, T. (2020) Eligibility criteria and disabled children’s social care. Leeds: University of Leeds / Research in Practice.
• Children Act 1989, c. 41. London: HMSO.
• Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, c. 44. London: HMSO.
• Law Commission (2025) Disabled Children’s Social Care: Final Report. (Law Com No 416). London: Law Commission. Mental Health Act 1983, c. 20. London: HMSO.

Disclaimer: Please note that this article is intended for informational purposes only and reflects the personal opinions and observations of the author. While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of information regarding references, reports, statutory frameworks, legislation and policies, these should not be relied upon as a substitute for individual research, for your own specific purposes. If you are seeking support or challenging a decision regarding social care, you should consult a qualified legal professional.