Sort

• 14 Feb 2022

• No

  Complex

  No. The fact that a particular placement will cause great stress to the CYP, or even that they may refuse to attend, can be relevant when it comes to deciding on placement.

  In B v Vale of Glamorgan [2001] ELR 529, a 16 year old suffering from mental ill-health refused to attend the school specified in Part 4 (now Section I) of her statement of SEN. Her parents’ appeal was allowed because there had been a failure to address how, given her refusal, the FTT had concluded that the school could provide for her needs.

  In MW v Halton BC [2010] UKUT 34 (AAC)#37, the UT considered that if the FTT were merely to find that a CYP, whilst attending or being expected to attend a school, experienced symptoms (from whatever cause) consistent with stress sufficient to be of evident concern to his medical advisers, it would need to be able to form a conclusion that the school proposed was nonetheless “appropriate”. This implies a need to consider the impact, if any, of attendance at that school on the child and how, if at all, the condition could be managed in such an environment and (since the circumstances are unlikely to be entirely fixed, or necessarily clear-cut) monitored. In A v A Local Authority (17 September 2021 not yet publicly reported), UT Judge Hemingway held that the FTT had unlawfully failed to consider for itself (the point not having been directly raised by the YP appellant) whether the stress which was said would arise from a particular placement was related to the YP’s SEN in a way which would have made it significant in selecting her placement.

  

  Noddy 'no-nonsense' Guide
  Authors: David Wolfe QC, Leon Glenister

0 This is helpful

|

Comment

Post