Sort

• 14 Feb 2022

• Yes

  Simple

  Yes. The FTT, as well as the LA, has an obligation to take into account a CYP’s views, and the FTT is required to expressly deal with their views (albeit not extensively and a paragraph or two should normally be sufficient, or even less where there is no mismatch between the child and parental views): M & M v West Sussex CC (SEN) [2018] UKUT 347 (AAC) #39-44, 59. If appropriate, a child’s views can be given through parental evidence: BB v LB Barnet [2019] UKUT 285 #9. However, in the case of a young person who brings the appeal, the FTT is not under a duty to give reasons for departing from their views over and above why it rejected their appeal: S v Worcestershire [2017] UKUT 92 (AAC)#71.

  The older and more mature the child, the greater weight the LA (and Tribunal) should place on a child’s views: West Sussex CC v ND [2010] UKUT 349 (AAC)#33.

  In St Helens BC v TE and another [2018] UKUT 278 (AAC)#14, 23, the UT held that it was lawful for the FTT to conclude that a school was not suitable solely by reference to its conclusion that the child “has formed an entrenched and currently intractable opposition to attending [R] school or any mainstream provision” given that it recognised that “his attitude to the proposed placement is part of the significant and complex needs that must be met by the provider” and given EP advice which linked his attitude to his SEN. On the facts (so the UT held) this was not unlawfully giving the child or young person a veto.

  Go to Glossary

  

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

0 This is helpful

|

Comment

Post