Had to request tribunal hearing adjournment

[KOKOagainandagain]

Things are very complicated . Sorry this is so long.

Hearing set for the end of the month. I still don't really know whether I want DS2 to attend ss or m/s. I have appealed part 4 as well and DS2 has a written offer of a place in an indi ss, but I have not named it or any other school. The LA has not got tribunal to direct but threatened to adjourn when they filed their case progression checklist back in June. I still haven't named part 4.

DS2 has a private dx of ASD made in March by MS. He has been a NHS SALT pt for 6 years, NHS OT for 4 years, referred by NHS SALT to comm paed for investigation for ADHD and ASD. Meets the diagnostic criteria for ADHD but passed the ADOS. Was referred to GOSH for second opinion. Has now had all the assessments but we will not get feedback until 2 weeks after final evidence deadline (which has just passed) and 2 weeks before the final hearing. Whether or not DS2 receives a diagnosis of ASD impacts upon whether he can attend specific ss and whether he is entitled to outreach support in the m/s. His referral to outreach has been declined because they require a firm NHS diagnosis. I tried to get an earlier appointment or for the written report to be released but GOSH refused to do this and instead provided a letter backing up request for adjournment. The request for adjournment went in about a week before final evidence deadline but as I had not heard I sent the bare minimum at FE and referred to the request for changes. I still have not heard back about the adjournment. The LA did not acknowledge receipt of the copy of RFC (have since been chased but not replied) and are proceeding as if it never happened submitting a large bundle at FE.

I know that adjournment is usually dependent upon reaching agreement with the LA about an alternative date that all can make and is usually only for a month but I have requested adjournment until January without specifying a particular date. This length of adjournment has been requested for exceptional family circumstances. DS1 is still not able to leave the house to do the taster days to attend indi ss the LA have agreed to fund. He has been out of school since January and receiving no tuition. Toxic ILs who have never accepted dx are convinced that he is suffering a mental health crisis. The stress levels are a tad high. DS2 is supposed to get EOTAS from Sept but this means chasing and chasing for weeks before they deign to speak to me and then its back to waiting. Months pass by until we all forget what we are waiting for.

There is also disagreement about placement for DS2 amongst my experts - SALT and OT think m/s with more support, EP thinks indi ss. He doesn't need direct therapy but SALT and OT to be ongoing personal interventions, overseen and reviewed by experts on termly basis. I am concerned that the lack of choice of indi ss would mean that academically he would not be in a similar peer group as his attainment is average/above average. I am also scarred by the failure of DS1's indi ss placement as I place greater trust in them than I had ever in his m/s primaries and it turned out to be misplaced.

DS2 is in year 5 (not a natural transition point), has some (questionable) friendships and is surviving if not thriving. Despite average attainment the LA EP showed statistically significant underachievement as he is of very high ability.

We moved house last summer and he started at his new school with a draft statement in Sept 2014. The school and all staff have been hostile and bordering on rude and aggressive. FOI request was made to the school and the LA. The school decided not to include their contact with the LA but the LA did and it makes interesting reading. The day before DS2 was due to start (i.e. after visits, buy uniform, meeting new teacher, seeing new classroom etc) the head was still writing to the LA trying to challenge their over-ruling of his refusal of a place .

Once DS2 had started however the school changed tack and began to claim to the LA that statemented provision was disproportionate to need, that their attempts to provide support were actually hampering him and that he seemed only to have a statement in the first place because parents had lied/exaggerated/conned professionals etc. I had my suspicions that they were going for the MBP mamma approach but only got confirmation when the LA quoted the school views in the June submission and the LA EP was keen to begin her feedback with reassurance that her assessments and observation supported the view of parents (and previous professionals) and did not support the school view that needs were exaggerated and that provision should be reduced. In fact they had found more and would amend parts 2 and 3 accordingly.

The head has now submitted his statement at FE and states that DS2 has been receiving provision as detailed since Sept. He then goes on to detail and make a big deal over provision that was not put in place until new objectives were re-written by the LA SEN rep at IEP review in June 2015. The LA rep wrote the objectives in March but the way that the targets were written (not SMART enough) meant that they could exist on paper but not in reality. EG alternative means of recording; CT review 'target achieved'. I got DS2 to review the IEP himself. He tells it as it is - i.e. only 'allowed' to use dictaphone/laptop on 3 occasions during last 2 months. LA rep directly asked the CT if this was true - she had to admit it was. Same for every target ME: 'well, DS2 says ...' LA rep: 'is this true?' CT: 'yes'. [sweet]

The school have not really changed their mind. The tribunal paperwork of course hides all the history and claims that provision was unproblematically delivered since Sept. They have then submitted DS2's rate of progress when unsupported but pretended that this rate of progress was only achieved as a result of all the wonderful support they put in place last September, and that the progress is at least expected or better than expected so provision does not need to be increased. Hence, whatever the hearing ruled, in reality, if he stays in m/s the LA would stop attending meetings and provision would go back to being on paper but not in the classroom and the school could get away with this because 'progress' does not reflect attainment with support.

I have not yet submitted the indi EP report. This is a whole additional issue but this message is long enough

So, my question is assuming adjournment is granted (but maybe not until Jan) should I try to arrange a meeting with the LA, agree amendments to parts 2 and 3 but concede part 4 and leave him where he is for another 2 years and withdraw the appeal? (or is this madness I have lost all sense of perspective). How does secondary transition affect this? If I don't push for ss now, will I be able to negotiate ss from year 7 onward? Will this mean (another) tribunal hearing?

Sorry this is so long - no wonder I can't sleep - this is only what seems a small part of what is in my brain 24/7 atm.

I have appealed part four. Indi SLT says he needs out of MS, indi EP says he's to cognitively able for SS so we're struggling to find anywhere suitable. I guess obvious choice would be a speech unit but the LA keep harping on that "he's fine" so I can't in reality view our local one. Plus hearing from a friend local speech units only get 1 hour a week SLt so I don't see any point moving. Indi EP points out that if he gets a good statement and it doesn't work, there's a good case for SS at secondary as there will be years of evidence ms wasn't right.

I had my last hearing adjourned by two months.

Email your LA and keep the fact you chased as evidence.

Email sendist and state you want to know what's going on and you want that to go to the judge booked for your case. Be prepaired, they will likely expect you in for the set date then adjourn on the day - they do this!

Pm me if you want hand to hold. Mine is two months away and I feel very isolated and scared I'm doing the wrong thing

Oh God, I hadn't thought about having to attend on the day to get the adjournment? Would that be everyone attending (i.e. my witnesses and advocate) and both me and DH?

I can't leave DS1 for that length of time, he will not accept a strange babysitter in the house (even if he remains in his bedroom which he can lock - and btw how weird would that sound to a 'normal' babysitter), and only local relatives are ex-teacher/head who are concerned that we can't cope, need professional help for DS1's 'breakdown' - they essentially don't believe his diagnosis and think he will be fine in the local 1,700+ m/s. They'd probably get him sectioned/kidnap him in our absence given the frankly threatening phone calls from FIL who appears to have convinced himself (and others in extended family) that he is the only person who can act as advocate to 'his grandson' as DS1's parents are showing callous disregard for his well-being. Even the LA don't have such extreme beliefs ffs.

A large part of the reason for wanting to adjourn is because DS1 can't leave the house and so I can't leave the house either I feel like I am taking a risk even popping to the village just in case something unexpected happened - even if it was just a parcel delivery. I can't lock the door in case of fire but we live in a remote farmhouse. We have a Dobermann, but she is only a threat to small furry mammals/game birds and would expect you to protect her from any intruder. I was hoping against hope that DS1 would be in school by the time of hearing but this is not going to happen.

If your EP is saying too cognitively able for ss - this usually means LA ss which are usually MLD unless your LA has a HFA provision. This is often why parents have to name indi ss. The problem I have found is that even in indi ss, the peer group is often several years below average academic attainment and DS2 just coasts on taster days as he has done everything before.

Phone SENDIST and ask when you'll get a decision on your application.

Yes. My indi witness went. I had to pay her to sit there for the two hours in a side room while the panel decided to adjourn ( along with the LA two witness ) but they had in reality decided well before it wasn't going ahead on the day. I told the panel I couldn't pay indi EP twice to attend. I tried to claim back her cost as I wanted to proceed. All fell on deaf ears. If I get that again this time I'm not paying witnesses twice. It's just so bias to the LA as it's all free for their witness. Also the delay by the panel enabled the LA to get two more witnesses. So four in all against my one. They wanted a fourth but I blocked that.

I'm very much on the brink of not caring anymore. It takes it out of you. I know I have all I can. I know I have gone a lot further than most would. But with the addition of a toddler with very severe needs who gets no help, school shouting at my son I don't see future hope for schooling

OK - seriously not happy

Phoned SENDIST this afto. They were all chuffed that an order had been made. Except that order - that will not go out until Monday - gives the LA a further 5 working days to say whether or not they object to an adjournment. i.e. less than 10 WD before hearing the LA says whether or not it objects but then Tribunal would need at least 10 WD to rule on adjournment. What a crock. Catch-22 anyone?

Legally, (before I consider less-than-legal means) is there anything I can do? Or should I just lay down and let myself be screwed?

And then there is the unfinalised EP report and the not-yet-happened EP visit to school for DS2, and, have I mentioned that DS1, nearly 15, is out of school and has been for months and we have NO WAY of getting him back/HE? [we really need a feeling overwhelmed emoticon]

They won't take 10 working days to decide on the adjournment, for their own sake they will want a decision early so that they can stand down the panel or allocate it to another case. But as soon as you get a copy of the LA response I suggest you get on the phone again to the tribunal pointing out that the hearing date is imminent and asking them to ensure that the papers go back to a judge ASAP for a decision as you need as much notice as possible.

If the LA don't object to an adjournment, there's an excellent chance that the tribunal will agree, so when you get the LA response that will give you at least an idea of what is going to happen.

Did you give the tribunal and LA all the details of the EP issue, and did you factor that plus the need to identify a school into the length of the adjournment you were asking for?

I assume you served a copy of your adjournment request on the LA? If not, you need to do that immediately. Either way, I suggest you contact them to suggest that, if they don't object to an adjournment, you liaise to try to agree a few dates to offer to the tribunal.

No don't give up, give up once you exhaust all options ( ie you can't appeal any more!)- don't come this far to throw it all in.

Thanks for the advice.

Bloody LA objected to the adjournment before sendist had the chance to send out the order. Sent it to sendist on Friday but I didn't get a copy until yesterday. They have taken the opportunity to request that sendist strike the case out as they argue that the request proves that the original appeal was unsubstantiated - 3 days after submitting at Final Evidence that investigations by their own EP have revealed further needs and that parts 2 and 3 will be amended.

Emailed a response and phoned to make sure the judge sees all correspondence before ruling on whether or not to grant the adjournment.

I do wish the LA wouldn't bend over backwards to do the wrong thing at every opportunity. It makes it impossible to respect them.

Received a ruling from sendist - there is to be a telephone case management hearing soon.

Any experience or advice?

I can get dates from my witnesses prior to the call so I can agree a hearing date there and then.

Can I have a legal rep/advocate also dial in? Do I need to?

TIA

How did it go?

Still waiting for the judge's ruling. I wasn't impressed that they hadn't read emails from the LA and the parents directly relating to the request and were unable to rule on the day. Comments that they would read the papers over the weekend before making the ruling did not fill me with gratitude. Other than that, they seemed over-friendly with the LA and their complaints that they had responded to parents appeal and met the deadlines. So its OK that they issued the draft in June but did not finalise until the following January whereas it is somehow the fault of the parents that the verbal feedback from the GOSH appointment, following around 4-5 years of assessment, will be 2 weeks before the hearing and the written report won't be available until after the hearing.

Waiting for the diagnosis before naming placement is apparently the wrong thing to do and the judge may strike out the appeal of part 4. DS2 has done taster days and has an offer from an indi ss school which has not been submitted as whether or not I want him to attend depends on diagnosis. Ironically, as provision (access to specialist teachers/outreach) is dependent on diagnosis - regardless of functional need - we are more likely to request ss if he doesn't meet the diagnostic criteria. The school have referred him but the referral has been declined as he does not have a clear diagnosis despite having recognised social communication difficulties.

It does seem sendist side more with the LA now.

I'm submitting my last tribunal ruling and JR letter. Apart from that I'm being very un emotional and factual as I don't belive the judge will care how slapdash the LA is, getting name, address, dob and school wrong. There ultimately isn't any way to enforce them doing a proper job

It did seem that there was no leeway granted to parents. Hence no recognition that we are not legally trained or that this is not abstract. Despite particular circumstances that were documented and had been provided at the earliest opportunity, and despite a short delay being in the interests of the child (for a change - let's not forget that application for assessment was made in 2013) and that, overall, the request was supported by written evidence from GOSH who explicitly stated support of an adjournment as their feedback was directly relevant, we have still not had a ruling on our request for adjournment made nearly 3 weeks ago.

Worse still, request for adjournment may result in the judge striking out appeal of part 4 before diagnosis is received. If we had done nothing, appeal for parts 2, 3 and 4 would take place at the end of the month. Because we have applied for adjournment, part 4 may be struck out weeks before the hearing date. Parts 2 and 3 may be heard at original hearing date (without GOSH or indi EP). At the hearing, parents would only have verbal feedback from GOSH (indi report can be finalise without) but this would not be available in writing and so could not inform the hearing.

I can't believe that the judge thought that the issue was complex and needed more time to read the paperwork submitted a week earlier.

If parents are to be treated harshly for not being 'practically perfect', do we not have the right to say 'do the job you are paid to do - and that involves reading the paperwork'? Or is that expecting too much?

Oh, and what about the rights of the child?

Sorry things are so shit for you keep I hope something gets resolved and that the judge remembers that you are "only parents" before he/she makes a decision! [needs a stressed out emoticon]

There's something grimly ironic about a legal process that prides itself in ensuring equality of opportunity for children - but withholds that same equality of opportunity to their parent's efforts to put a case.

Keep - this sucks. I've been involved in and around four very similar Tribunal cases this year, and the inconsistency in decisions and interpretation of evidence by panel members is absolutely shocking. It sounds like right now, you've got one of those judges who will bend over backwards to ensure that one side gets every opportunity to put its side of things.

With GOSH - any chance that your professional contact there would be willing to appear as a witness at the hearing? Could that bridge the diagnosis problem?

Still waiting for the judge's ruling.

Received the Tribunal bundle this morning for the original hearing date. The LA and SENDIST are acting as if we never applied for adjournment

I am so depressed that action that was designed to have beneficial impact for DS2 has actually made things worse - dealing with the request has been emotionally draining, expensive (advocate for telephone hearing) and has involved additional work. But, so long as we don't impinge on bureaucratic timetables .. that's the most important consideration!

So, if you are not feeing stressed enough before tribunal hearing, I would advise that you apply for an adjournment and really ramp up the stress levels

They send the bundles out automatically, the person responsible will just have been given a list of cases where he has to do that and will have no idea about the adjournment request.

Still not heard. Told yesterday by the latest.

That's so crap. In what universe is this child centred?

Advocate chased this morning. Still not heard. Seems have passed beyond to existential angst.

That's just so bad. I have totally lost faith in the system. It just doesn't work

I heard that they only have something like 18 clerical staff at the tribunal to deal with everything, and some of those are part time. I guess the whole problems comes down yet again to underfunding. Grrrr.

Yes there is only a few of them. But the judges I doubt are so over worked.