@ILovePeggySue have you requested an expedited hearing on the basis DD is not in school?
I asked about section 19 provision and the inclusion officer at the council said it would only apply if I had a letter from CAMHs and/or GP using the exact words that she is, 'medically unfit to attend school'.
@Needlenardlenoo is right, the law does not state the LA does not have a duty unless there is medical evidence with specific wording from CAMHS/GP. They should not have a blanket policy of waiting for specific wording in medical evidence from CAMHS/GPs before providing it. They should consider all evidence not just that of CAMHS/GP (and in fact, not just medical evidence. For example, if the primary acknowledge DD can’t attend, the LA should consider that evidence - but don’t worry if the school doesn’t support you, that doesn’t mean the LA doesn’t have to provide it.).
The government’s statutory guidance for arranging education for children who cannot attend school because of health needs states “Where specific medical evidence, such as that provided by a medical practitioner, is not readily available, the child’s home school or local authority should consider liaising with other medical practitioners and consider other evidence to ensure appropriate provision can be arranged as soon as possible.”
The LGO is clear that no evidence does not necessarily mean no duty. The LGO is of the opinion LAs must consider all available evidence and that there will sometimes be conflicting, little or no evidence and sometimes all the evidence the LA wants will be unavailable. They are also clear a lack of medical evidence does not necessarily mean the LA does not have a duty to provide provision, so LAs should not have a blanket policy of only providing provision if there is CAMHS or consultant evidence. There are several LGO reports and upheld decisions confirming this.
For example, this LGO report (pg10/11) criticised one LA for stating they did not have a responsibly to provide education because there was no medical evidence as that shows “a lack of understanding of the relevant legislation”. “Firstly, a lack of medical evidence should not stop a child from accessing education; nor does it negate the Council’s duty to provide the child with a suitable education.” And “Even without medical evidence, the Council had a duty to arrange suitable alternative education provision for Y under the category of ‘otherwise’. “
And this LGO decision states, “The Courts have found that councils are entitled to decide whether a child’s health needs prevent them from attending school and to decide what weight to give medical evidence. But the law does not say alternative provision will only be given where there is medical evidence.” And, remember, just because the LA has the ability to decide whether a child’s health needs preventative attendance doesn’t mean a parent can’t challenge that decision.
And this LGO decision states “Section 19 also requires the Council to make suitable education arrangements when a child who is of compulsory school age, who because of exclusion, illness or otherwise may not receive a suitable education unless the Council arranges it for them. Therefore, the Council had a duty to provide Y with education despite its view there was insufficient evidence to say she was medically unfit. This is because it should provide her with education under the category of otherwise.”
If you want other examples, there are others on the LGO website.
Request a referral back to CAMHS. Not with the aim of evidence but DD needs further input from them. It isn’t acceptable for them to say she needs an EHCP and SS then wash their hands of her.
Have you already emailed the Director of Children’s Services? Or have you communicated with lower down in the LA so far?
CAMHs have discharged but said she needs ehcp and specialist provision.
Do you have this in writing?