nally suggests that this is a partial picture. The President of the Family Division, and other senior judges, have expressed ‘deep anxiety that the child care system should find itself struggling to provide for the needs of children 69 without the resources that are required’, acknowledging that the inherent jurisdiction ‘is there to fill the gaps in the present provision, but it cannot be doubted that it is only an imperfect stop gap, and not a long term solution’ (Re T (A Child) [2021] UKSC 35). These issues and the development of the law are both legally and politically live. Placement shortages, according to survey and interview respondents, allow ‘cherry picking’ by providers to accept children and young people with lower levels of need. This behaviour was seen to relate to providers’ concerns about a negative Ofsted judgement if the child’s issues of risk and harm rapidly escalate. There were repeated references to care providers giving ‘immediate notice’ when a child’s behavioural issues intensified, contributing to the perspective that an increasingly outdated regulatory framework may be creating or exacerbating barriers to meeting the best interests of children and young people. DCSs suggested that this framework should be reviewed with urgency. In the absence of a registered alternative, the use of unregistered placements is a last resort. DCSs and survey respondents described how they maintained regular contact with Ofsted. As a result of increased numbers of children in care, increased complexity of need and worsening sufficiency we have also seen an increase in the number of children placed in [unregistered] settings which we monitor carefully and progress activity, including weekly reporting to Ofsted. (DCS, Unitary, North East Region) As described through