A breach of the WELSH CODE OF PRACTICE on Commissioning Care and Support is a PUBLIC LAW challenge amenable to JUDICIAL REVIEW : so held in HEART OF WALES CARE LTD & others v SWANSEA CITY COUNCIL ( 2026 ) EWHC 899 ( Admin ).

In R ( Hughes ) v Kirklees Council ( 2026 ) EWCA Civ 306 the Court of Appeal confirms the lawfulness of the Council’s decision to sell 2 adult care homes to a private provider. The Council’s use of figures that had not been updated was not (significantly) misleading. The cost savings were significant even on the updated figures.

The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman has on 25 March 2026 published BEST PRACTICE GUIDANCE to help ADULT SOCIAL CARE PROVIDERS deliver fair, transparent and accountable complaints handling, particularly for SELF-FUNDING CARE USERS>

In conjoined appeals ( 2026 ) EWCA Civ 344 the Court of Appeal rules that the definition of “father “ in Sections 2 & 4 of the Children Act 1989 is confined to the common law definition. Only a child’s genetic or biological father can be regarded in law as the father. No parental responsibility is acquired by an individual registered as “ father “ who does not satisfy that definition.

OFSTED has updated GUIDANCE in relation to INSPECTIONS of local authority children’s services, taking effect in April 2026.

The Care & Support ( Charging & Assessment of Resources ) ( Amendment ) Regulations 2026, SI 2026/213, are made pursuant to the Care Act 2014, come into force on 6 April 2026, and extend to England an Wales. They amend 2014 regulations, SI 2014/2672. There are set out how local authorities calculate the amounts individuals can afford to and are required to contribute towards their care and support, both for those in care homes and those not in care homes.

When a local authority is assessing an applicant’s CAPITAL RESOURCES for FUNDING FOR CARE NEEDS, the disregard in the Care & Support ( Charging and Assessment of Resources ) Regulations 2014 for the VALUE OF A TRUST FUND derived from a payment made in consequence of personal injury applies to the whole Fund. R (CGT ) v WEST SUSSEX COUNTY COUNCIL (2026) EWHC 293 ( Admin ) holds that there is no exclusion for the element of the Fund identified as relating to care needs.

R (FC) v BRISTOL CITY COUNCIL (2025) EWHC 3227 ( Admin ) concerns Sections 17, 31 and 47 of the Children Act 1989, the Working Together to Safeguard Children Guidance, andcare and supervision of children and significant harm to them. Irrationality challenges fail. So too do human rights challenges under Article 8 of the ECHR based on interferences with both family and private life.

In S v ISLINGTON LBC (2025) EWHC 2780 (Fam) MacDonald J considers the public law and human rights principles applicable in determining a parent’s application (under the Court’s inherent jurisdiction) to prevent a local authority from exercising its power, under Section 33 of the Children Act 1989 (effect of care order) to carry out routine vaccinations in the case of a child the subject of an interim care order.

In JK ( Return Order Under Inherent Jurisdiction ) (2025) EWCA Civ 1309 it is held that that there is no general principle that a local authority cannot invoke the High Court’s Inherent Jurisdiction to secure the return to the UK of a British child in a foreign country if the authority intends thereafter to take care proceedings that it could not otherwise entertain. The relevant principles relating to the Inherent Jurisdiction, its limits and restrictions, are set out.