Boy with ADHD challenges refusal to supply special chairs at fee-paying school

High Court Reporters

An application for special electric-powered chairs to meet the "postural and toileting needs" in the classroom of a teenage boy with ADHD has been refused because he is going to a fee-paying rather than a free school, it has been claimed in High Court proceedings.

The boy, who also has autism, developmental coordination disorder and hypermobility, has sued the Minister for Education and Youth over a refusal to fund the chairs.

Suing through his mother, it is argued the chairs have been recommended by a HSE occupational therapist who says the child "presents with postural challenges, specifically posterior pelvic tilt and forward head posture".

This, the therapist says, "significantly impacts his ability to engage in academic tasks and participate in classroom routines".

A specific chair with wheels and electric height adjustment, and can also be electrically moved, has been recommended and should be "accessible in every teaching environment".

The court heard this would mean a total of eight chairs.

The clinical assessment indicated that the current school-provided chair and desk setup "do not offer adequate adjustability or support to meet his physical or sensory needs".

The boy's school made an application to the Department of Education for funding for the chairs under a special furniture scheme it operates for students with special educational needs.

The application was turned down on the basis that the boy was not attending a school participating in the free education scheme.

The decision stated that only primary special schools and recognised post-primary schools participating in the free education scheme are eligible to apply for funding for the furniture.

It also said that fee-charging schools such as the one in Dublin the boy is attending "have an additional source of income that is not available to schools in the free education scheme".

The department also said:"It is of course open to the school itself to provide the equipment being requested from its own resources and in the context of making every reasonable effort to support access for students with special educational needs". The department refused to overturn the decision.

As a result, his mother brought High Court judicial review proceedings against the minister and the State.

It is claimed by the boy’s solicitors, KOD Lyons, that funding “is regularly provided by the Department of Education and Youth to fee-paying schools”.

It is also claimed, among other things, the decision is irrational, unreasonable, without legal basis and in breach of his constitutional rights.

There is nothing in the published furniture scheme limiting its application to schools in free education or otherwise, it is argued.

It is also claimed the boy’s exclusion is in breach of the scheme and in breach of the Education Act 1998 and of the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act 2004.

When the case was mentioned this week before Ms Justice Rose Gearty, she adjourned it to July 14th, and the statement of opposition to the case should be lodged before then.