![[2025] UKUT 010 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
Nutrition and sleep
Nutrition and sleep
The Appellants’ case was that D’s EHC Plan should include recommendations about his nutritional and sleep-related needs and related provision.
The First-tier Tribunal found, at paragraph 18 of its reasons, that nutritional advice “was properly recorded in section G [of the EHC Plan], as health provision, not educational, and we determined that it should be removed from section F”. The Tribunal declined to include a section G recommendation for paediatric sleep and ADHD assessment.
- Heading
- The decision of the Upper Tribunal is to allow the Appellant’s appeal against the First-tier Tribunal’s decision
- Proceedings before the First-tier Tribunal
- Late agreement that D should be educated ‘otherwise than at school’
- The hearing on 1 April 2022
- Community access and restraint: arguments
- Ms Long’s reports
- Nutrition and sleep
- The First-tier Tribunal’s decision
- stated as follows at paragraph 13
- made the following findings about D’s need to access the community, as part of his education, and related provision
- in relation to nutrition, stated
- in relation to assessment for sleep difficulties and ADHD stated
- in relation to Ms Long’s documentary evidence, stated
- Grounds of appeal
- Legislative framework
- As mentioned above, those matters are dealt with in sections B and F of an EHC Plan respectively
- Regulations
- Events following the Upper Tribunal’s grant of permission to appeal
- Local authority’s arguments
- Ground 1
- the Appellant argues (which is not accepted) that she had no opportunity to make submissions on the qualifications and expertise of the additional supervising support worker. However, the Appellant pr
- Ground 2
- Ground 3 & Ground 4
- Ground 5
- Ground 6
- Appellant’s response to the authority’s written submissions
- Ground 1
- Ground 2
- Grounds 3 & 4
- Conclusions
- Ground 1
- Ground 2
- Grounds 3 and 4
- Ground 5
- Ground 6
- Conclusions