Shoddy EHCP/outcomes do not reflect child/family views: thoughts?

[agedmother]

Despite best efforts to pin down the LA, DC has had a really useless EHCP finalised. I am weighing up the costs of an appeal.

The whole set up has been rotten, including an EP who has ignored robust evidence from two different Psychologists who have undertaken recent and more detailed assessments, misquoted me, and mischaracterised DC in an unfair and unhelpful way, but who has refused to acknowledge correspondence seeking clarifications and corrections, and who appears to be operating outside professional body good practice guidelines. I have written to the Director of Social Services and moved through two tiers of complaint, but my questions on this have literally been ignored in all the LA responses.

They have even ignored polite requests as to preferred forms of address.

I wouldn't normally want to pursue individuals via their professional bodies but behaviour appears to be ethically problematic on more than one count, so I am reluctantly considering this as I don't see why DC should be subject to adverse and inaccurate characterisation in important educational records.

And despite the LA SEND Strategy flannel about families and children being centered in the EHCP process, with commitments to producing plans through co-production, they have refused to engage with suggestions from child/family and independent Psychologist on outcomes (section E), and instead persisted with a list that reads like service demands of my child.

I note that section E is not appealable with SENDIST. Has anyone managed to get outcomes changed? Assume I am going to need to write to LG Ombudsman? Anyone corresponded with DfE?

Anyone been through anything similar? TIA

I have been in a similar position and chose to focus on the things that I can change through the mechanisms that can bring about that change. Which is Section B, F and I through SENDIST. Anything else might be significant energy drain, and to what end? The LA is likely to be meetings its statutory duties (ignore the narrative in the code of practice etc and focus on the law) and I do not see what would be achieved by pursuing the EP. To the extent possible, focus on building relationships with everyone and relentlessly push forward on the things that are most important to you.

Personally, I would focus on getting a watertight section F. You can’t appeal section E (outcomes) directly, but consequential amendments to E in the light of changes to B and F can be made.

Thanks Both. I think it is because we have been lied to and threatened, completely legitimate questions have been repeatedly ignored and DC is now subject to an unpleasant narrative which has no clinical basis and is disputed by the SENCO. With this LA I can't see anything changing much if we do appeal as it is going to be like this every step of the way. So I think I may be at the point of thinking enough is enough - we won't be dehumanised any more. I want some sunlight shone on their practices and for them to have to justify how they are treating disabled children and their families.

With this LA I can't see anything changing much if we do appeal

Why? Appeals can result in an excellent, watertight EHCP that is enforceable. Ultimately it isn’t the LA making the decisions.

The system is how it is because local authorities are not funded to meet their legal obligations so are using every available loophole to triage and ration provision. It will not change until funding changes

Whilst I appreciate the funding issues sit underneath this, this does not excuse unethical behaviour or child blaming in order to reduce budgetary pressure. Practitioners have ethical responsibilities and professional bodies exist to ensure practice meets minimum standards. Because their is a risk of harm to service users if these ethical standards are not complied with.

I think this LA will ignore and obfuscate every step of the way in the event of a better plan emerging, which I agree would be likely. They ignore the law with impunity.

Apologies for typos - I'm tired.

A detailed, specified and quantified EHCP does change things though. It can be enforced, via judicial review if necessary, although the vast majority don’t get it a JR hearing itself.

At ARs held shortly after Tribunals LAs should not remove provision ordered by SENDIST just because they disagree with it. They must have new evidence it isn’t required.