LA disputing EP report and asking for withdrawal

[claw2]

LA are disputing indi EP report, based on parental views.

EP is saying as far as he is concerned, they are exactly that views of the parent and he will not amend or withdraw. He says their letter smacks of back covering and is totally irrelevant and he will not respond, other than to tell them the above.

However he has given me a copy of the letter and said i can respond if i want to. They are saying my views are inaccurate. All of my views are on based on written evidence. They are offering no evidence, other than saying my views are inaccurate.

They have also sent a copy of their letter to other professionals involved with ds, CAMHS for example.

Do i bother to set the record straight or just wait and see if it goes to tribunal and put the record straight then?

Yes can you PM me your EP's name!

They really are splitting hairs for example EWO did not 'recommend' home tutor, she sent a representative to the meeting to explain the referral route.

For god sake does it really matter if she 'recommended' it or not, the fact is she sent a representative and ds now gets a home tutor.

They seriously want to argue about whether she actually said the words recommend or not!

'They seriously want to argue about whether she actually said the words recommend or not!'

Yes, well you don't, so they can argue to the air.

EP is totally brilliant. The report was amazing and totally damning.

So, just to be clear, did the Indi EP read the reports from other professionals, then write his report with an account of those reports?

Or did the Indi EP listen to your account of the reports from other professionals, then write his report with an account of your account of those reports?

If it's the latter, I can see the LA's point of view, a little. Whatever the source, an account of a situation will reflect the recounter's perspective as much as the actual events.

The EP though, is entitled to do as he pleases and if he thinks there is nothing to change, he will say so, and appears to have done just that.

His report was based on reports from other professionals, IEP's from school and report written by SENCO. Grounds of appeal etc, NIL. An interview with me and an interview with ds. He was instructed for the purpose of tribunal.

He had planned to go into school to see ds, but by this time ds had been out of school for approx 6 months.

So, then, the question is, why has he presented the written information from other professionals (the letters stating that they were referring to SS due to inappropriate pictures, for example) as 'parental views' rather than factual background?

In that case, he could justifiably write to the LA and say 'Goodness me, huge apologies, those paragraphs shouldn't say 'parental views', they should say 'background/history' because the information is all on record in various reports/documents....

In theory the LA could complain to the HPC (Ed psych registration body) to argue that the EP has committed malpractice and he could have to defend himself to the HPC, so he could be in some trouble and have some hassle having to defend his work. I don't think you need to respond though, he sounds confident enough of what he has done.

I do think a word like 'recommended' is something significant, though. There is a gulf between 'giving information' and 'recommending'.

I'm really not trying to be awkward, but I'd have some sympathy for someone who was represented as 'recommending' home tuition when in fact, all they did was send someone out who explained what the referral process would be. The fact that the process was successful is irrelevant to that. The whole issue there, is that by suggesting that the EWO recommended it, it sounds like she felt it was necessary. If she merely signposted the options you can pursue as a parent, that is far more neutral.

I don't know enough about this, but wouldn't pointing out home tutoring as an option be the same as recommending it in that unless it was THE only suitable solution it wouldn't have even been mentioned as a possibility?

I would also ignore it. If you get drawn in it is almost like giving it credence. Obviously you will give your views to ed psych as this is part of assessment but it isn't the whole assessment. They can decide to disregard the assessment if they wish but it will of course still be seen by tribunal when you appeal.

I wouldn't say so, Star. It depends, doesn't it, on what the conversation precursor was?

So, for example, if a parent asks the EWO whether home tutoring is a possibility, and the EWO says 'umm..not sure, I can send someone out to chat to you about the referral pathways...' and then does so, that's not the same as saying 'I think you should have home tutoring.'

I'm not saying that is the case here, I'm just saying that words can be crucial and I don't think it's being arsey to want to be accurately represented. After all, it's why we are all encouraged to follow up meetings with 'thanks for meeting, can I just clarify that we discussed x and you said y....'

Lougle thats a good point. I think EP just views it as a total waste of his time.

One point is whether EWO recommended home tuition (she put nothing in writing to me, but visited us at home), they say EWO cannot recommend home tuition, she only made mum aware that her recommendation needed to come from professionals, so she invited manager from unit to attend meeting. Which is exactly what he had written. EWO visited us, recommended HT and sent a representative to the meeting.

social services referral (which is something that EP did not want to get into and viewed as a seperate issue)

They then go on to argue about ds's experience of school and that it wasnt negative. EP already made his views clear on this, later on in the report.

Other 2 points are EP's views on other professionals

'social services referral (which is something that EP did not want to get into and viewed as a seperate issue)'

I think that is very sensible tbh. And though the LA have made it all a part of the same thing you should try and keep it seperate too.

You might be the worst mum in the world, but your ds' educational needs are still his educational needs, and that is what they should be concentrating on.

Lougle this EWO did more than recommend it, she told me that in order for ds to get HT the school and LA needed to agree to it and to 'leave them to her'

She visited us at home and sat there crying after talking to ds and slagging off the LA. She told me the LA had no choice but to provide HT and that she would make a 'referral' to the medical needs centre and get the manager to attend.

It is very sensible, Star, but again, if the report references it, then it has to be accurate.

Why does the report refer to it?

The report refers to social services as it was a social worker who visited ds in school. She phoned me and told me to go and collect ds from school immediately and take him for an emergency mental assessment. After ds showed her his bleeding injuries all over him, told her he wanted to kill himself and spoke to her about things he wanted to do before he killed himself. So he mentions briefly that ds was referred to them after i expressed concerns about his self harming and anxiety to school.

Late to the party as usual.
I agree ignore it.
They are going to refuse statement and it will go to appeal which will be months away. EP will have ample chance to clarify but sounds as though he is happy with what written.
Experts for tribunal have to give oath that report is accurate. Your EP knows this and would not have written it if cannot defend it.
This is nothing new. Their case has always been you are the liar / deluded / neurotic / obsessed with getting statement that is not needed.
From LA perspective it's a tried and tested technique after all its worked with 2 schools, two social workers and camhs. They also have past form / success at getting reports changed eg GP.
I think it's a good thing. They are sticking to their limited repertoire of tactics. There is nothing new. It will not do them any favours at tribunal to accuse fellow professionals of lying / misconduct. They would be very stupid to play this card at tribunal especially when have lied so much themselves. It's not far off libel of your EP and he is entitled to be annoyed a fellow professional is implying poor practice by him. I doubt very much the LA EP who presumably has some code of conduct will take this line at the hearing.
Ignore it. Don't respond. They want to rattle you. Don't give them the satisfaction.
They are up to their necks in their own lies. But tribunals are not stupid they know parents would not fight for years just because they can't find anything better to do.
My LA at tribunal refused to put any mention of progress with ABA in part 2. When we said if you don't agree that's true then put it under a section called parental views they refused saying parental views were not relevant to the statement. Yet they put in his sleep and eating problems which were only ever witnessed by parents. The tribunal put all our wording in.
You need to not react to tactics. By all means come on here and rage but don't get drawn into any correspondence with LA. LA are going to refuse regardless of what you or your EP says.

Was going to say similar to Agnes about the fact that the LA are just over-confident in their tactic of getting professionals to change their reports or at least persuading them to tone them down or simply disappear. They have been successful and therefore felt confident doing it with your indi EP.

This also shows that they do this verbally with no written record. They have openly admitted that they have at least once attempted to persuade a professional to change their report by encourging their engagement in an unrecorded dialogue. This is what they have been doing with others and will explain why you have been sure of support to have found professionals backtracking or simply withdrawing.

Good points Agnes.

Do LA 'experts' have to give evidence on oath then? I didn't know that. The LA SLT definitely committed perjury then.

I think they do it in their reports. AFAIK LA don't.

It's in the report. I am pretty sure they have to say they understand their duty is to the court / tribunal. Been years since I did law but think under civil procedure rules they have to sign a statement of truth. LA and NHS reports are generally written as part of an assessment or review not specifically for tribunal proceedings so that may be the get out clause. It may only apply where they are paid to write the report eg their duty is not to the person paying them but to the court / tribunal.

The principal EP who has written to indi EP, isnt the same LA EP who assessed ds. The LA EP who did assess ds, in fact supported what indi EP had said (not directly) and her recommendations are pretty much the same, apart from not as detailed etc and what you would expect from an LA EP.

Everyone is staying very quiet apart from the LA at the moment. I am having meetings with a room full of people, who have had no contact with ds for 6 months, if they have even meet him at all and dont know their arse from their elbow.

'LA and NHS reports are generally written as part of an assessment or review not specifically for tribunal proceedings so that may be the get out clause.'

But given that their reports could and 'should' be available for scrutiny under the LAW, isn't a requirement for them to do the same i.e. statement of truth a very basic, but effective essential change for the children and families bill?

Lougle i have just found the email to EWO confirming what she said to me. You saying that everything should be followed up in writing reminded me.

"I spoke to you on xxxx and read out the A&E CAMHS report and told you ds was in not fit state to attend and the difficulties he was having. You suggested that he could be eligible for home tuition. You also stated if he was not fit to attend school, I should take him to my GP. You visited us on home on xxxx, i showed you CAMHS A&E report, GP medical certificate and the note that ds had written and we agreed that home tuition might be the best option for ds and that it would only be a temporary measure, until CAMHS had finished their assessments and put a plan in place. You stated you would send a representative from Medical Needs Centre to the meeting on xxxxx"