Being paranoid or not?

[insanityscratching]

As you know our LA hasn't exactly showed themselves in a glowing light with regards to ds's SSEN.

I've been reading their submission to have appeal struck out which consists of carefully selected correspondence to justify their submission and allegations that solicitor calls erroneous and wholly untrue whereas I'd call them barefaced lies.

I get the feeling that they have now crossed the line from it being professional to personal as it appears to me they are setting out to discredit me as a mother with her child's best interests at heart.

Dh thinks I'm paranoid but showed it to a friend without mentioning what I was feeling and she said without any prompting it looks like they are taking it personally.

So could I be right? Has anyone experienced the same? Anything I should be wary of?

Yes. I have been told by a solicitor that my LA do often get personal.

Not saying yours has but it happens. Contact a Family said the same of my LA.

I don't really know what you should do to guard against things except act professional yourself and find allies where you can who you can call for a character witness if necessary.

I have had a horrendous time at the 'personal' level but I'm still standing and as happens to all of us, more teflon about it than I was. I wonder seriously what the next low trick is that they will perform and then it happens, and it isn't so bad really.

I've no idea who I'd call as a character witness though Star. Every report that LA have seen mentions that I'm a diligent, knowledgeable parent. No one has ever questioned my ability to parent my children.

I'm on good terms with both ds's past school and ds and dd's current school. I can't think of anything that they could find that would justify what they seem to be trying to do.

I've certainly behaved far more decently throughout the whole mess than they have anyway.

Maybe they think that if they throw enough mud some of it will stick.

Then you've probably got nothing to worry about except for your own anger levels.

It is probably an attempt to tip your behaviour into the 'unreasonable' arena.

Smile in an amused but serious way if you ever come face to face with any allegations and think of one or two sentences that you will use if anyone is ever brave enough to allude to such to your face.

The best trick ever is to not be defensive and where possible not even deny it.

Word on the street round here is that I record conversations in secret. I have never done so. It feels unfair that they talk about me as if I do, but I'm over it. Not least because I figure if they had any integrety and honesty then recording their conversations wouldn't matter. They have no proof.

They also believe collectively that I have been banned from MN for propaganda. So frigging what? Perhaps it will mean they see no point in snooping here.

I was referred to SS for mainly 'disagreeing with professionals'.

They are other things, some worse that I can't put here, but somehow they just lose their effect.

I don't ever feel I have to put them straight any more, but if I am attempting a new relationship with someone whose help I need, I might ask them to contact x, or y, to verify something iyswim.

And btw, I see the whole thing as my position of strength. If people feel they need to go to such lengths to discredit me they must be bloody scared of me.

God only knows why. I've only ever been sensible and polite.

I'll bear in mind what you've said. I know I've got to appear calm and reasoned I might need to work on resisting the temptation to bite their heads off though

Yes our experience has been very very personal. I worked in civil litigation for years (cases against NHS) and never experienced anything like SEN world. It is just the most vicious vindictive lies and parent bashing and they almost make it so extreme so that it sounds unbelievable to anyone else. At one point I tried to get transferred to the legal dept on the basis I would rather deal with a solicitor who can be struck off for unprofessional behaviour than an SEN officer who thinks they can abuse the law as they choose. However they refused! I think partly alot of SEN officers (not all) come through the ranks as admin officers and are actually not that bright. I think of it a bit like the Third Reich, they seem to just follow the culture and policy and not have the guts to question, they just 'follow orders'.

We had a 4 hour horrific AR a few months ago and after an exchange of correspondence I think they have backed down on every point, except its written in such a nasty critical way of me i can't actually tell because it doesn't read like a letter telling me I was right and they were wrong; it reads as though I have unreasonably objected to everything (while failing to mention what I was objecting to was them breaking the law).

You just have to trust that these are tried and tested practices and Tribunals have seen it all before. Star is right you have to stay calm, keep the moral high ground and always consider how it would read to a tribunal panel / court. Which might mean letting some things go so you do not seem like someone who complains about everything. Thats what they want, to paint you as vexatious and unreasonable.

I have been accused (by SALT) of basically abusing my 2 year old child by paying for private therapy for him and thereby denying him the attention of his primary caregiver - the SALT ignored the fact that I gave up work and became his therapist, I was only able to afford supervision, not a bank of therapists. But even if I had paid therapists, there is zero evidence that would have been harmful to him anyway. Apparently I should have spent the day holding up toys next to my face in the vague hope he might look at me, instead of giving him effective intervention a few hours a day.

If they have to resort to these tactics, it means they have little confidence in their arguments. Thats the way I choose to look at it anyway.

Our solicitor maintains and has always maintained that they won't actually go to Tribunal because they don't have anything to fight with. They still only have 14 year old assessments despite being told for the last six months that the reason the proposed statement is so wrong is that it isn't based on current assessments.
They have no plans to reassess J, they are now past the deadline to respond to the appeal and we have an order in to bar them if they don't respond within a week.
They are hugely incompetent they didn't even sign the strike out request and gave no legislation or reasons why it should be struck out only that the eight page submission from us wasn't sufficient and they wanted a working document.
They have been to twenty eight Tribunals in the last twelve months and yet you'd think it was all completely new to them if you read their submission order

I agree Agnes. I think the some of the vindictiveness Comes from incompetence and defensiveness. They don't even KNOW the law only the culture and myths perpetuated by their departments. If your argument doesn't fit with what they have been trained to believe it gets their backs up however reasonable, and upsets their sense of fairness in the context of their understanding. Where they know the law they don't understand it, and this is partly why you spend so much time wading through waffle. It's because they don't KNOW how to do it right.

This is fine when faced with the majority of parents who don't know either, so when a parent comes along who does, they are motivated to bring them down because they are 'probably' already getting more provision, earlier than those they are used to dealing with and possibly with more severe needs.

Our tribunal and therefore last evidence date has been moved but before that there was a dare set and the sent in no evidence.

And legal teams are brought into LAs not to ensure they are performing legally, but ti defend their illegal practices.

Our LA's legal department aren't well paid in comparison to what they'd get in private practise and obviously they don't attract high calibre candidates.Probably having low calibre staff helps them to justify their incompetence

Ours buys in a tribunal specialist.

I'd be more worried by a Tribunals specialist than the bunch at the LEA we have Star. I'm assuming they cover all legal aspects because they don't seem to specialise in SEN anyway
I have been given LA's finest inclusion officer otherwise known as ruthless bastard given to parents who fight and won't put up with the rubbish they try and get away with.
You do know you are getting to them when you go up the ranks though I've had three inclusion officers in the last nine months I think current one is their last defence

Oh don't worry, the tribunals specialist is a twat. They think he is God though.

But then he is an ex-LA legal bod that went private.

Hey need to ask you about something else. Have just got dd's proposed amended statement only eight months after AR, now it's not brilliant but it's not dire. I can live with it with her in the school she is in because we have a good relationship and if I want something done or altered they are happy enough to take my word for it.
We'll have a transition review next year and so I'm guaranteed a phase transfer amended statement and even if I've missed something it's only four months before next AR .
Am seriously tempted to accept it as it stands and save the fight to ensure the next one is just right for her next school.
What do you think?

There is a lot to be said for a bit of peace and if her needs are being met without you having to battle for a year it could be the rest you need to do it properly when required to next year.

However, things to consider are:

What will the statement for transfer look like? Will it look the same as this one but with a new school named? Because if it does, you'll have to PROVE how her needs have changed since this last statement to warrent the ammendements you seek. That might be very difficult to prove, especially if the school have been helpful around and outside of the statement to make sure that her needs WERE met and that she therefore progressed. The LA could argue that is was the statement rather than the school that met her needs, or that if one school could do it then with all mainstreams being equal, another one could with the same statement iyswim.

However, you might have a strong argument based on it being a totally different environment with different expectations etc. But ramping up the cost of provision might be difficult when you have accepted it at the current cost.

I'm afraid having never been through stage transfer (Except in the Early Years) I have no idea how different the statement is likely to be to account for the transfer.

I suppose I would do some of the work now. Rewrite the statement as you think it ought to be for your own information and consideration. Work out what you think it might need to look like for secondary and then make your decision about whether to appeal based on that.

You might also want to consider rejecting it and writin your ammendments now just for the record even if you aren't going to appeal the final. You 'might' win something extra, but you'll register your disastisfaction so that no-one can say you were happy with it when the next AR/transfer meeting turns up!?

Anyway, just some thoughts, but as I have said I have no experience of this yet.

I like that, it sounds a plan and it will cover all bases.

The school is great and will state to the LEA that the sky is pink and provide evidence for it if I asked so I'm pretty sure they'd document a huge increase in need anyway if I asked.

Truth be told dd gets more support than she needs anyway so AR's involve a fair bit of creative thinking and contribution writing to ensure we keep what she's got.

And of course school benefit by having a TA that has more hours than the child she is assigned to needs or wants which is hugely unusual so I'm well thought of.

I'll go through it offer some suggestions just in case I need to argue next time.

Thank you