We know that there are any
number of campaigns calling on your time and sympathy and it can sometimes be
hard to make an informed opinion about the rights and wrongs of complex
situations. If you would like more information about this case, why we believe it
is wrong and what we hope to achieve, please read on…
Why do we
believe that it is wrong?
We are fighting our campaign
on three fronts, that it is morally wrong, that it is needlessly expensive and
also that it is unlawful. The moral, financial and legal arguments are
summarised below:
Moral: We
believe that the moral argument for keeping William at home is self-evident. No
‘normal’ child would be separated from their parents against their wishes unless
there were child protection issues. We do not believe that having a mental
disability justifies William being taken away from his home and the people who
love him, if anything his disability is the very reason why he should remain with
his family.
This
is where we need your support! The more names that are on our petition, the
greater our case for the moral argument to keep William at home. Signing up
costs nothing, we simply need to gain numbers to support our moral argument.
Financial: William’s
current school is Nexus, a special needs school in Tonbridge. They argue that
they do not have the resource to cope with William’s needs. No school has a
limitless amount of financial or human resource however we believe that there
is a better way to resolve this.
Sending
a child to a residential school is much more expensive than any provision at a
day school because whatever resource is needed during the day is provided 24/7.
William will not suddenly require less resource to look after just because he
is further away therefore we believe that rather than move William to the
resource it would be better to provide additional resource where he is.
This
would actually cost the taxpayer less money since the resource would only be
required during school hours.
Legal: We
believe that what is happening to William is unlawful. Parents have a right to
request any maintained school listed in section 38 (3) of the Children &
Families Act 2014. The Local Authority can only refuse this request using one of
three specific exceptions; either
- The attendance of the child or young person at the requested school or other institution would be incompatible with the efficient use of resources.Sending William to a residential school would be more expensive than increasing the provision at his current school so we do not believe that this exception can be applied.
- The attendance of the child or young person at the requested school or other institution would be incompatible with the provision of efficient education for others.
As
William’s current school is a special needs school and many of the children
there follow individual timetables, we do not believe that William’s attendance
is detrimental to the provision of education for others.
- The school requested is unsuitable for the age, ability, aptitude or special educational needs of the child or young person concerned, or The school is unsuitable for special needs students.
Since
Nexus is a special needs school we feel that, given the resource, they should
be able to cope with an autistic child. Under the Equality Act they are
required to make reasonable adaptations and we believe that such adaptations
would negate the need to move him to another school.
These
are the only grounds upon which Kent County Council can lawfully refuse to name
Nexus as his ongoing placement. We do not believe that any of them can be
applied in this instance.
Is this the
whole story?
Some people may be wondering
whether there is more to this story than meets the eye. There are sometimes
good reasons to remove a child from their family for medical or social
welfare/child protection reasons. We recognise that in some instances, home is
not in the best interests of every child however that is certainly not applicable
in this instance.
Like many disabled young people
William’s welfare is overseen by three main agencies, social, health and
educational.
Our social worker has worked
with our family to help us obtain the social support that William needs. She is
visits William at home and at school. There have never been any welfare issues
or concerns regarding his home which is loving and stable.
William has been under the
care of the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) for some time.
He takes medication prescribed by a paediatrician to reduce his anxiety but
apart from this routine medication he is lucky to have robust health. There is
no specialist therapeutic treatment required nor any medical reason why he
should be removed from his current setting.
The sole reason for removing
him from his home is his school placement. The current school simply feels
unable to cater for him. We do not believe that any child should be removed
from their home against their parent’s wishes and against the best interests of
the child for this reason alone, especially when it is the most expensive
option.
