The High Court has allowed an appeal by a mother and her minor daughter over a disability service statement, finding that it did not specify when the services identified in the child’s assessment would be provided and that the Appeals Officer gave inadequate reasons for rejecting the family’s appeal.
Ms Justice Marguerite Bolger delivered the judgment on 11 January 2024. The appeal concerned a January 2022 determination by the Disability Appeals Officer under the Disability Act 2005. The court allowed the appeal on two points of law but did not make final orders at that hearing.
The child’s assessment, completed in December 2020, identified autism spectrum disorder and global developmental delay. It recommended multidisciplinary supports including speech and language therapy, occupational therapy and psychology. A service statement issued in February 2021 identified development of an Individual Family Service Plan (IFSP) as the service to be provided, with a start date of September 2022. It said the IFSP process would determine further interventions and their expected timeframes.
The child’s mother complained that the statement did not set out when the recommended interventions would be delivered. The Complaints Officer declined to uphold the complaint. The Appeals Officer then rejected the appeal, referring to the service plan, waiting-list reduction efforts and the absence of a basis to provide services earlier.
The High Court held that the service statement must specify the timeframe for services identified in the assessment report. The court said that while an IFSP could be provided, it could not take the place of stating when the recommended clinical services would be delivered. The statement’s September 2022 start date applied to development of the IFSP, not to the recommended services. The court found that the approach breached section 11(2) of the Act and Regulation 18.
The judge also found that the Appeals Officer had not adequately engaged with the mother’s central argument: that the IFSP was an additional step which left the actual interventions and their delivery dates unspecified. The decision’s references to waiting lists and service timing did not explain why the appeal was rejected on the grounds raised.
The court did not determine the final form of relief. It directed that the parties be heard on final orders, with the matter to return on 25 January 2024 at 10:30am. The judgment does not state what orders were ultimately made.