Tribunal Part 3 help please - v long - sorry!

[sickofincompetenceandbullshit]

Namechanger as LA are clearly on a mission this time - you do know me...

So...ds, 10, has autism, ADHD and various sensory processing disordery things. Academically pretty able, but with completely illegible handwriting. All medical/ psych stuff NHS dx'd, all accepted by LA. Has had Statement for 7 years and (until last amended Statement) provided for 33 hours of 1:1 TA support, 5 extra hours per week for covering trips (needs 2:1) and for covering meetings e.g. with SALT etc.

It also provided for termly visits from SALT, to oversee weekly social skills stuff, run by the TA (these have happened) and was supposed to include termly OT visits to oversee motor skills stuff...though we recently realised that those stopped in 2009 . He is also supposed to receive 'no less regular than half-termly visits' from autism outreach, though these have been patchy and a Circle of Friends thing that was promised 18 months ago still hasn't happened . Outreach lady is great but vvv overstretched and not always reliable in terms of turning up etc.

So ds is due to transfer to the mainstream high school that is almost next to his current mainstream junior school. When he transferred there from the infants, things were terrible. He can be extremely violent and rude, especially when stressed/ anxious, and is also a runner. The school gave up after about 6 weeks and said that they couldn't have him there. They found a place for him (without asking me) at the local EBD school, saying he was too complex for mainstream. I refused to send him there and called in all the outside agencies, who did offer support, and the LA basically told the school to suck it up - they did, and he has gradually become one of their real success stories .

However, I know how hard he finds any change, let alone a change to a big, scary high school, and so I know things have to be as close to perfect as possible.

The school he is due to go to is probably one of the better ones for ASD in the area and all his friends are going there. I also teach there, which isn't necessarily relevant, but it does mean I know the score. It is the only mainstream he would survive and he has been adamant for years that he will only go there. Our other alternatives (as there are NO schools locally, even within travelling distance, that cater for challenging, bright, HFA pupils) are very expensive private Priory school or a slightly less expensive vaguely mainstream private with small classes and ASD experience. But he wants my school and he should be allowed to try.

Everyone in LA knows that ds is borderline mainstream/ special. LA EP concluded that mainstream is a 'reasonable' option, but wasn't massively convinced, and CAMHS psych clearly believes special would be better. However, I want to go with mainstream with support and give him a chance.

So, he's due to transfer in September, but the finalised amended Statement came through in March and they have removed the specified and quantified SALT and OT. Sorry, they've put OT and SALT 'as appropriate', which might as well be removing it. They have also refused to up the number of autism outreach visits - I'd asked for extra contact for the first half-term, as that is the dangerous time - just a weekly phone call/ email/ visit, for seven weeks.

I'm not saying that SALT, OT or autism outreach will make or break high school for him, but full-time support isn't as effective as it could be without expert input. I want him to make progress, not just be supervised, and he will need to have a good start or the placement will break down. My headteacher has been very clear that she doesn't want him there anyway and the behaviour that his current school tolerates won't be at high school - occasional lashing out etc. It needs to go well.

Therefore, we are going to Tribunal to put back the specified and quantified provision in Part 3 - we've actually asked for half-termly, as he's 'owed' OT and SALT is even more essential in secondary, with all the different teachers etc. We also want the enhanced package of autism outreach.

LA's Tribunal papers received today - Saturday, of course - and their main reasons for opposing our appeal are:

1. he already gets a lot of support
2. it's an inefficient use of resources
3. they can't force the Local Health Authority to pay for it
4. my argument of 'put the money in here or the placement will fail and he'll have to go to expensive private school' is false as he is correctly placed in mainstream.

Now, his SALT needs are an objective in Part 3 and take up about 8 bullet points in Part 2; we have an ADOS report from CAMHS, recommending 'ongoing' SALT; we have a psych report from CAMHS, insisting that SALT or autism outreach input is essential...we have an LA EP report, commenting on his 'exceptionally poor handwriting' and an LA OT report, putting his motor skills on the 2nd centile and diagnosing 'significant' sensory processing disorder. I don't think his needs are in question; the LA's defence certainly doesn't go there with attacking the need for the input.

My view is that 1) he does, but supervision isn't the same as progress.
2) I don't care, as you have to meet his recognised needs
3) no, fine, but then you have to pay for private if they won't - the needs are in part 2 and the vague, unspecificed and unquantified stuff is in part 3
4) you lying bastards know that, if this goes wrong, you'll be paying ten times what you are paying now.

They're promising to do costings (not sure what of) and have booked 3 witnesses: all 3 heads of service (SALT, OT and autism outreach) for the Tribunal; their case will (presumably) be that they're all too poor to pay and that he's making excellent progress at present. He is, but high school is a whole different ball game and he was making progress with support . CAMHS psych has agreed to be our witness and will support the need for input from services.

AIBU/ mad/ naive or is my case sensible and theirs is bollocks?

Thank you for reading if you got this far; this is my 4th Tribunal application, but the only one that has ever got to this stage without them backing down...

Oh, and (clearly totally unconnected ), the LA SEN chief emailed last week to offer to put ds before some panel that puts together an individualised autism support package; he said he'd allocated funding for it.

Googled the panel/ programme name and it's a scheme set up to support children who might not survive mainstream and would therefore cost the LA too much money in expensive placements...does that sound like a child who they're confident would be fine in mainstream?

Guess what the panel does? Puts together OT and SALT packages!

It's nothing personal. It's just an attempt to reduce costs and to wear you down. They might have a case because the system is full of incompetents and this they are chancing their luck. That doesn't mean they have a REAL case or that they are right.

I think it's just the way of the UK at the moment.

I'm sorry though.

It sounds very sensible and I would think there is still a good chance they will back down - because as you say the alternative is a bigger hit on their budget

If the autism outreach team cannot manage it there should be outreach from a local special school etc or again they can go private to buy in some transition support.

What is the LA plan for transition then? Dump him in there on day 1 to sink or swim?

Some of it is a bit personal. I am not their favourite person - one too many LGO complaint and 4 too many Tribunal applications. I am tenacious in the same way that you are . But I know they do this to a lot of other people too. Tis crap .

X-posted, Agnes. Yes, I think that's exactly their plan. If he sinks, though, there will be no going back - I have seen it happen to too many kids. Primary kids are tolerant of issues. If the right support is not in place and ds runs round screaming and kicking people during transition to secondary school, he will become a target for all the bullies, full-time support or not. And I don't want that to happen.

I want him to swim!

But, I would never have dumped him in a pool without armbands and an adult when he couldn't swim, and that's effectively what I'm being asked to do.

There is no official transition plan. It currently stands at ds having a visit for 2 hours to high school this month.

Thank you both for the replies, by the way.

Do you think I need a private report?

Do you have a hearing date?

Yep, July.

Ah, quite short notice then.

Yes, I'd get an EP report and request attendance at tribunal if you don't already have one.

I'd probably attempt a SALT for the same but it would depend on how much I really thought the won SALT provision would be worth it.

And I'd consider OT instead/as well.

Sorry. I know they are all considerable expenses.

I can afford it if I really have to. I just don't know what purpose they would serve, though. The needs are uncontested.

I think the SALT provision and autism outreach are more important that the OT stuff. I think that ship has sailed wrt handwriting and the motor skills are developing enough; I will pursue it (more successfully?ha!) through LGO, as it relates to 2.5 years of non-provision of statemented provision.

I know, - but I am reminded of Claw's tribunal where the needs were clear in reports from the LA even, but on the day the LA told the tribunal that his needs were only on paper, not real.

Also, they can agree his needs but make a case that it is context/environmentally based and that the new school will be a more suitable environments so his needs are not as strong there iyswim. You need someone to have visited the place there and to talk about the overwhelming sensory experience, the confusion, the fragile cohort etc etc.

Yes, I take your point. Am hoping to get secondary SENCO there as a witness. At a push, I could be a witness wrt the chaos of the secondary school environment, but that would be a bit weird!

Placement broke down at the school for v similar child a couple of years ago, due to poor handling by staff as well as unmet social/ communication needs. Permanently excluded after avoidable incident; now in v expensive private provision. Will bring it up if I need to, to prove staff need for access to specialist advice and need for specific work on social skills. Would rather not slate my own workplace though, unless I have to!

Did Claw's Tribunal accept that? Terrible.

Yes.

Sick, I don't want to frighten you, and tribunals are 'generally' fair, but they do have their fair share of incompetence and the panel members are nearly always ex-LA staff.

Add to that the deflation of the word 'adequate' and you just need to make sure you have covered your bases.

Thanks. It piSses me off rather than frightens me. This system should work.

Sickof it might be worth ringing one of the national legal firms like Maxwell Gillot who will offer a free initial consultation.

Have you thought of approaching an advocate to assist? Someone like Fiona Slomovic. She is not a lawyer but she has bags of common sense and experience and charges reasonably. She is always very busy though.

I guess I do need to ; I could really do with the time in the next few months being spent on preparing him for the move to high school, rather than fighting this. Idiots.

I found some stuff on IPSEA that reminded me of the cases I need to review: E v Rotherham, N v North Tyneside and Littlechild v. Clarke and Somerset County Council. I cannot believe that LA have received any legal advice at all. The more I look at their case, the more I believe it is unwinnable (for them): Yes, we accept his needs. Yes, he needs speech therapy and OT. BUT Health Authority don't want to pay so he can't have them, even though it is our responsibility to arrange the provision, and we don't intend to specify, even though case law says we should.

Barking.

But I accept that that doesn't mean that they won't win!

This will sound a bit random, but given you work there, have you spoken to your union? They can advise you about how to 'prove' the chaos without being accused of unprofessionalism, conflict of jnterest or putting your job at risk. Otherwise lea will pressurise HT, who will pressurise senco, who will pressurise whoever is next in line...

Plus lea will prob. report you to gtc for breach of previous failed child's rights if you allude to him, so either someone else has to, or you need to get his mum in as a witness... without breaching data protection by getting her number off anything remotely school-related.

Good point, Maria. Thanks. Thank you, everyone.