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.