The Supreme Court has dismissed the Health Service Executive’s appeal in a case about the service statement issued for a child assessed as having autism spectrum disorder and global developmental delay. It held that an Individual Family Service Plan (IFSP) can be a health service, but found the original service statement and its first review did not meet the requirements it set out for such statements.
The appeal concerned a High Court decision that the statement breached the Disability Act 2005 by giving a timeframe for developing an IFSP without specifying when the therapies identified in the assessment would be provided. The High Court also found that the appeals officer had given inadequate reasons for rejecting the family’s complaint. That finding was not appealed.
The Supreme Court rejected the argument that every service recommended in an assessment must be included in a service statement. It said the two documents serve different roles, but there must be a rational connection between them. A statement could be challenged if its only specified service had no relevance to the needs identified in the assessment.
The Court concluded that an IFSP is a health service because it helps families identify priorities and goals and sets out how professionals can support them. It said the plan can mark the start of service delivery and provide an evolving basis for further goals. The Court also observed that the family-centred model must work within the Act’s structure of enforceable rights.
The original statement did not explain what the IFSP process would involve. The Supreme Court said statements should give more detail, including how the process relates to needs identified in the assessment and what professional assistance will be involved. Reviews should assess progress towards goals, state goals for the near future and explain how those goals will be measured. If an initial statement specifies only an IFSP, the HSE must record that identified needs have not been included, to help measure the gap between assessed needs and stated services.
The Court dismissed the HSE’s appeal, leaving the High Court’s remittal of the complaint to the appeals officer in place. The officer must consider the complaint in light of the Supreme Court judgment if the family continues to pursue it. The Court noted that the original statement had since been superseded and that further reviews may have taken place; it did not decide what services the child must receive now.