The High Court has refused a child’s application to quash an HSE service statement that said recommended supports were unavailable, but granted a declaration concerning the non-provision of statutory reports. The court said it would receive submissions before making the final order.
The judicial review concerned a child identified in the judgment as DB, who was born in 2011. An assessment of needs application was made on his behalf in September 2014. An initial assessment found a disability but no autism diagnosis, and recorded Hyperlexia III and anxiety difficulties. A later assessment, reported in November 2017, concluded that he met the criteria for autism spectrum disorder and recommended multidisciplinary clinical supports, including occupational therapy, speech and language therapy and clinical psychology, as well as educational and parenting supports.
In February 2018, the HSE told the child’s mother that the services identified in the assessment were not then available. The letter said he had been waitlisted for the HSE school age team from November 2015, with a stated waiting period of 36 months. In evidence before the court, an HSE official said the child had not been seen by the team and that, with about 350 children on its waiting list in late 2019, the HSE could not indicate when he would be seen. The mother said he had received no services from the HSE and argued that the statement gave inadequate information about why services were unavailable and when they might be provided.
Justice Barr said the court had addressed the general legal issues in a separate judgment delivered the same day. In this case, he found that where services were unavailable, a statement saying so was sufficient compliance with section 11 of the Disability Act 2005 and the regulations. A liaison officer could try to give information about why services were unavailable, he said, but could not create places or promise future availability without a realistic basis.
The court therefore declined to grant certiorari quashing the February 2018 service statement. It refused the other reliefs sought, except for a declaration concerning the non-provision of section 13 reports, which was common to three cases heard together. The precise terms of the final order remained to be settled after submissions from the parties.
The judgment recorded that the child had received no services from the HSE by the time of the decision. It said the family could raise the need for additional resources with local representatives and Ministers.