stated as follows at paragraph 13
stated as follows at paragraph 13:
“The parties agree to record in the EHCP that [D] has no traffic awareness or understanding of how to keep himself safe outdoors. The Tribunal had before it a risk assessment prepared by Skybound Therapy, dated 25 August 2021 supporting 2:1
“…..to ensure that if [D] does run away, two people are available to use fluid restraint and/or two-person escort techniques to keep him safe. [D] is almost 15 years’ old and is overweight. He cannot be restrained or escorted safely by one person. Indeed, when his mother walks with [D] in the community, she is forced to use a Houdini harness. The use of ongoing physical restraint of this sort is undignified and unsafe, as per para 6 of the Skybound Therapy Report regarding 2:1. It is important that, moving forwards, [D] is able to access the community without physical restraints being used.” (Parent submissions)”;
- 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
![[2025] UKUT 010 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png)