‘significant harm’ however, could be said to cause confusion in terms of the definition of child neglect, here emphasis may be overly placed in the commission of physical abuse, therefore, acts of omission could be brushed over as a non-significant risk of harm (Speight & Wynnes 2000). Section 17 of the act does, however, define a child in need and places them into categories. The following sections it could be said cover those children in the early stages of neglect. (a) He/she is unlikely to achieve or maintain, or have the opportunity of achieving or maintaining, a reasonable standard of health or development without the provision for him/her of services by a local authority (b) His/her health or development is likely to be significantly impaired, or further impaired, without the provision for him/her of such services (HM Government 1989). The categories of children in need could also be said to
‘significant harm’ however, could be said to cause confusion in terms of the definition of child neglect, here emphasis may be overly placed in the commission of physical abuse, therefore, acts of omission could be brushed over as a non-significant risk of harm (Speight & Wynnes 2000). Section 17 of the act does, however, define a child in need and places them into categories. The following sections it could be said cover those children in the early stages of neglect. (a) He/she is unlikely to achieve or maintain, or have the opportunity of achieving or maintaining, a reasonable standard of health or development without the provision for him/her of services by a local authority (b) His/her health or development is likely to be significantly impaired, or further impaired, without the provision for him/her of such services (HM Government 1989). The categories of children in need could also be said to