A primary institution in the countryside has embarked upon a legal dispute with the High Court aiming to reverse a judgment that dictates they must admit a severely disabled child who hails from a family seeking global protection in Ireland. The child’s family submitted an enrollment request to the school during the previous year and were turned down because the school administration claimed they could not fulfil the child’s needs and the pupil didn’t satisfy the enrollment criteria.
However, an educational committee of three members, established by the Minister for Education, vetoed this action. The school’s governing body has disputed this judgment and appealed to the High Court to dismiss what they regard as an erroneous and unreasonable conclusion by the committee. Owing to legal constraints, the parties partaking in the lawsuit cannot be named. The court was advised that the child in question is not at present attending this school.
The governing body of the school indicated that, in addition to regular educational classes, the institution also offers specialised educational support for pupils diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). They emphasise that inclusivity forms a major part of the school’s principles.
The school’s resolution was shaped by a psychological report produced on behalf of the child in a country neighbouring their homeland. This detailed statement reveals that the child is extremely disabled, suffering from multiple disabilities and requiring continuous support from multiple specialists in a specially designed school. The report claims that despite being prescribed medication, the child’s mental health has worsened, and they have exhibited both aggressive and self-aggressive tendencies.
The governing body argued that their school does not possess the specialised knowledge or the necessary resources mentioned in the report to cater to the child’s needs. They also noted that admitting a child that the report suggests is better suited for a specialised school could compromise the educational delivery for their existing students and could lead to safety and health issues.
Following the refusal, the appeal was taken to the Education Minister and was examined last year by a three-member committee established under the 1998 Education Act to address appeals concerning issues like enrollment rejections and suspensions. The committee allowed the appeal and ordered the school to enrol the child, which led to the school’s governing body contesting this decision, alleging it contains several flaws and must be disregarded.
The board involved in this incident has stated that the appeals hearing process was not typical, and that a translator was not present during the appeals hearing, leaving the child’s mother, whose understanding of English is limited, to struggle without assistance. Allegedly, she was instructed by the committee’s chair to use Google Translate to make her points understood, instead of the hearing being postponed as the board believes it should have been.
The board also suggests the committee exceeded its authority and did not fully think about the implications of the child’s attendance on the rest of the school’s population and staff. They further allege that the committee did not take into account the details of a report detailing the child’s unique needs, including the need for constant support in a specialised school environment.
In its legal action, the board is seeking a variety of orders and declarations, chief among them being the nullification of the committee’s demand for the school to admit the child. It also wishes for the issue to be sent back to the Minister for another hearing in front of a new appeals committee.
A recent hearing saw Ms Justice Niamh Hyland preside over the case, during which David Leahy SC, representing the defendants, communicated that his clients did not object to the authorisation of the challenge, but required more time to address the accusations of the school. The court was informed of a privately hired tutor for the child. The judge maintained hope that the involved parties might try to expedite proceedings, and agreed to postpone the case until the following month.