This means that at least the mother has the rights, duties, powers, responsibilities and authority which by law a parent of a child has in relation to the child and his property(Children Act 1989 (I)(3)(1)). At the moment, she seems to have abdicated this responsibility towards her children, and it is unclear whether the father has acquired this responsibility. Therefore, there should be an evaluation under the Children Act 1989(17). This section defines a child in need as a child who is unlikely to maintain or achieve reasonable standard of health or development without the provision for him of services by a local authority that the children’s health and development will be ignificantly impairedif they are not availed of social services (Children Act 1989 (III)(17)(10). If the children are deemed to be of need, then this section states that a local authority has the duty to afeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are in need and so far as is consistent with that duty, to promote the upbringing of such children by their families(Children Act 1989 (III)(17)). Before the local authority ascertains what services are needed by the child, it must first ascertain how the children feel about such services and give due consideration to these wishes. Then, the local authority has a duty to facilitate the provision of these services for the children. Among these services is the provision of accommodations and paying of cash in exceptional circumstances, if the childrens means are such that this is necessary (Children Act 1989 (III)(17)).Therefore, the fundamental question that needs to be asked is whether these children are n need within the meaning of the statute. If this is the case, then it is the duty of the local authority to provide services for these children. If the children’s health or development is likely to be significantly impaired, then they will be deemed of need and the authority would have the duty to provide services for these children.