Threshold Decisions in Child Protection: A Guide for Social Workers

Understanding Thresholds

Threshold decisions are some of the most challenging judgments social workers make. They determine whether a child's circumstances require statutory intervention—whether concerns are serious enough to warrant child protection enquiries, a child protection plan, or court proceedings.

Getting threshold decisions right is crucial. Set the bar too high and children at risk may not receive protection. Set it too low and families face unnecessary intervention, and resources are diverted from those most in need.

Key Thresholds in Children's Services

1. Early Help Threshold

Children who would benefit from additional support but whose needs do not require statutory intervention.

2. Child in Need Threshold (Section 17)

A child who is unlikely to achieve or maintain a reasonable standard of health or development without services, or whose health or development is likely to be significantly impaired without services.

3. Child Protection Threshold (Section 47)

Reasonable cause to suspect that a child is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm.

4. Care Proceedings Threshold (Section 31)

The child is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm attributable to care given (or likely to be given) not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give.

The Significant Harm Threshold

The concept of significant harm is central to child protection thresholds. Under the Children Act 1989:

• Harm means ill-treatment or impairment of health or development
• Ill-treatment includes sexual abuse and non-physical forms of ill-treatment
• Development means physical, intellectual, emotional, social, or behavioural development
• Health means physical or mental health

Factors in Determining Significance

When assessing whether harm is significant, consider:

• Severity: How serious is the harm?
• Duration: How long has it continued?
• Frequency: How often does it occur?
• Impact: What effect has it had on the child?
• Premeditation: Was there intent?
• Context: What were the circumstances?
• Age and vulnerability: How vulnerable is the child?
• Cumulative effect: What is the combined impact of multiple factors?

The "Reasonable Parent" Test

For care proceedings, Section 31 requires that the harm be attributable to:

• The care given to the child not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give, OR
• The child being beyond parental control

This compares the care given to what a reasonable parent would provide—not perfect parenting, but adequate, good enough parenting.

Likelihood of Harm

Intervention can be justified not only when harm has occurred, but when it is likely to occur. "Likely" means a real possibility—one that cannot sensibly be ignored.

Predicting future harm involves considering:

• Past patterns of behaviour
• Changes in circumstances
• Parental capacity to change
• Risk and protective factors
• The child's vulnerability

Common Threshold Dilemmas

Neglect Cases

Neglect often involves cumulative harm that builds gradually. Individual incidents may not seem significant, but the pattern is. Consider:

• The child's lived experience day-to-day
• Developmental delay or regression
• Pattern over time, not just current snapshot
• Impact compared to what the child should be experiencing

Emotional Abuse

Emotional abuse can be harder to evidence than physical abuse. Look for:

• The child's presentation and emotional state
• Patterns of parental behaviour
• Impact on the child's development and wellbeing
• Consistent accounts from multiple sources

Domestic Abuse

The impact of domestic abuse on children varies. Consider:

• What the child has witnessed or experienced
• Frequency, severity, and escalation
• The child's response and presentation
• Protective parent's capacity to protect

Threshold Documents for Court

When care proceedings are issued, the local authority must file a threshold document setting out:

• The specific harm alleged
• The evidence supporting each allegation
• How the harm meets the legal test
• The attributable care that caused or contributed to the harm

Writing Threshold Statements

• Be specific about what harm has occurred or is likely
• Link each allegation to evidence
• Distinguish between facts and opinion
• Use clear, non-jargonistic language
• Focus on what can be proven

Avoiding Threshold Drift

"Threshold drift" occurs when professionals gradually accept lower standards of care as normal for a family. Warning signs include:

• Focusing on small improvements rather than whether children are safe
• Comparing this family to worse cases rather than what children need
• Becoming accustomed to concerning behaviours
• Lowering expectations because of family circumstances
• Losing sight of the child's daily experience

Threshold Consultation

Threshold decisions should not be made in isolation. Use:

• Supervision to discuss complex cases
• Legal advice for borderline cases
• Multi-agency strategy discussions
• Second opinions when uncertain
• Threshold panels or similar local processes

Recording Threshold Decisions

Your record should show:

• What information was considered
• What factors were weighed
• What the decision was and why
• Who was involved in the decision
• What alternative options were considered

When in Doubt

If you're unsure whether a threshold is met:

• Focus on the child's experience and safety
• Seek supervision and consultation
• Consider the consequences of getting it wrong either way
• Err on the side of caution when children are at risk
• Be prepared to revisit the decision as more information emerges

Conclusion

Threshold decisions require careful analysis of evidence, understanding of legal tests, and professional judgment about risk and harm. They should be made transparently, with clear rationale, and in consultation with managers and colleagues.

Remember that threshold decisions are not about labeling families—they're about determining what response is needed to keep children safe. Getting them right means children who need protection receive it, while families who need support without statutory intervention are not unnecessarily drawn into the child protection system.