The High Court refused most of the relief sought by a child challenging delays in an assessment of needs by the Health Service Executive (HSE). It granted a declaration, made across three cases, concerning the failure to furnish reports required by section 13 of the Disability Act 2005. The court said it would receive written submissions on the precise terms of the order.
The judgment, delivered electronically on 30 July 2020 by Mr Justice Barr, concerns one of three test cases heard together. The court said this case-specific judgment should be read alongside the main judgment, which addressed the shared legal issues. It did not repeat those broader findings.
The applicant’s assessment application was lodged on 6 May 2016. An assessment report was not issued until 28 January 2019. His mother said in an affidavit that she had contacted the HSE repeatedly after the assessment should have been completed. In a 2018 complaint response, a HSE complaints officer said the relevant area was breaching legislation in this case, citing delays linked to application volumes and staffing.
The assessment report said the child had enough symptoms of autism spectrum disorder to warrant an autism assessment. It also raised a possible further assessment by the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service, depending on the autism assessment, and said educational psychology input would be beneficial. The report said the assessment officer had written to the National Council for Special Education (NCSE) about assessing any need for an education service.
The court noted that a special educational needs organiser later wrote that supports had been put in place at the child’s school, including special needs assistant support for care needs arising from his physical disability. The judge said it was unclear whether that response had been formally brought to the mother’s attention. The court concluded that a referral had been made and a response furnished, although it did not resolve that communication gap.
The mother also complained that the assessment report did not include an education-needs assessment and that the child had not received interventions identified in the report. The HSE’s chief officer said education matters were outside the HSE’s control. The court referred the wider dispute over referrals and service statements to its main judgment, which held that a service statement was not defective merely because it referred a child to a relevant body for that body to assess and decide what services were appropriate.
The judge described the period between the 2016 application and the 2019 report as a matter of profound regret. The court refused the other relief sought, while reserving the precise wording of the order for further submissions.