Who am I?

I am an autistic woman who provides equine facilitated learning (EFL) to young people with SEND. EFL uses interactions with horses to support the development of emotional and communication skills and improve mental health. I am also a director of a community interest company providing EFL and mental health support to the community. Many of the community I work with are either home educated or EOTAS

Like many neurodivergent adults and professionals I have seen first-hand how hard parents have to fight to secure education that actually works for their child. I also work closely with other families across the country facing similar struggles, particularly where the system is not meeting their child’s needs.

I am seeking to act as a lead claimant in a judicial review, supported by other parents across the country who are affected by these issues. Their experiences will help provide the evidence needed to properly test the law. Some parents may also join the case where appropriate, but many more will support it by providing evidence and helping demonstrate the wider impact of the law

This case is not about avoiding responsibility.  It is about protecting something fundamental and that is the role of parents in making decisions about their own children.

Summary

The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026 introduces powers that may allow the State to override parental decisions about a child’s education, even where the education being provided is accepted as suitable.

We seek to bring a legal challenge to test whether these provisions are compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998, particularly the right to family life and protection from discrimination.

Call to Action

We are raising funds to bring a judicial review to test the lawfulness of these powers.

We need your support. If you believe that parents should not lose their rights simply because the State thinks it can do “better”, please contribute and share this page.

What are we trying to achieve?

For over 150 years, the legal position has been clear. If a parent provides a suitable education, that is the end of the matter. No authority could intervene simply because it preferred an alternative. This Act introduces something fundamentally different. For the first time, a local authority may accept that education is suitable but still override parental choice because it considers something else to be “better.”

That is not a small change at all. It is a shift in who decides what is in a child’s best interests.

This is not just about education

This case is about what happens inside the private family sphere. The law has always allowed the State to intervene where education is unsuitable or where a child is at risk of harm 

Those safeguards already exist. What this Act introduces goes further.

It creates situations where- 

• Parents may be prevented from making decisions even where education is accepted to be suitable 
• The State may intervene not because there is harm, but because it prefers an alternative 
• Families may be drawn into intervention following section 47 inquiries under the Children Act 1989, even where those concerns are later found to be unfounded 

The concern is not that section 47 powers exist. The concern is this. What may now follow simply because those powers are triggered. There is a real risk that:

• A single allegation, even if quickly dismissed may initiate a process leading to ongoing intervention and ultimately a loss of parental autonomy, even where no safeguarding issue is established 

That is a profound shift. It means:

• The threshold for intrusion may be low but the impact on family life may be significant and lasting 

This engages the right to respect for private and family life under Article 8. The key question is therefore this -

That question has not yet been tested by the courts.

This case seeks to do that.

Why this raises concerns of discrimination

One of the most concerning features of the Act is how it affects children with special educational needs.

Families of children in special schools may face restrictions on their ability to withdraw their child even where they can provide a suitable alternative education.

That raises a fundamental question. Why should this group of children be treated differently?

Parents of children in mainstream schools retain the ability to make decisions about their child’s education, provided it is suitable.

Yet for children with additional needs often those requiring the most careful, individualised decisions, those same rights may be restricted.

This gives rise to serious concerns that:

• Families of disabled children may be subject to greater State control than others 
• Parental autonomy may be reduced because a child has additional needs 
• The law may treat one group differently without clear and sufficient justification 

These issues engage protections under the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Equality Act 2010.

This case seeks to test whether that difference in treatment is lawful.

Why this matters

We are concerned that:

• Families may be prevented from removing children from placements that are not working 
• Parents may be subject to intervention following unfounded safeguarding concerns 
• Certain groups particularly children with special educational needs may be disproportionately affected 
• The balance between parent and State is being fundamentally altered 

This case is not about proving the law is unlawful. It is about ensuring that it is properly tested.

What is the next step in the case?

We intend to bring a judicial review claim against the Department for Education.

The Court will be asked to consider whether parts of the Act are incompatible with:

• Article 8 (right to family life) 
• Article 2 of Protocol 1 (right to education) 
• Article 14 (protection against discrimination) 

If successful, the Court may issue a Declaration of Incompatibility, requiring Parliament to reconsider how the law operates.

How much are we raising and why?

We are seeking to raise £250,000 to fund:

• Specialist public law and human rights representation 
• Preparation of evidence from affected families 
• Court fees and litigation costs as well as protection from costs in the event that the claim were to fail. 

Public law cases of this nature are complex and must be properly resourced to be effective.

Who are we looking for?

We are particularly seeking to hear from families who may be affected, including:

• Parents wishing to withdraw a child from a school placement but concerned this may be restricted 
• Parents who have experienced section 47 investigations that were later dropped 
• Families where local authorities have overridden parental decisions despite education being suitable 
• Parents of children in special schools concerned about future restrictions on choice 

Your experiences may help provide the evidence needed to properly test this law.

Thank you

Thank you for taking the time to read this. This is not just about one family.

It is about ensuring that the law remains accountable,  and that fundamental rights are not quietly redefined without proper scrutiny. If you can support, please do. If you cannot, please share.