Charlie continues to display strong indicators of autism however long public health waitlists, the family’s capacity to access private services, language barriers and living in transient accommodation has hindered a formal diagnosis.
Charlie commenced child care at the age of 1 and staff immediately recognised developmental concerns and encouraged his family to connect with health services for a review. The family felt that the concerns identified were only a matter of maturity and that these would disappear as he got older.
At age 2 the concerns were increasing, however Charlie’s family were still not interested in progressing any health or developmental reviews. The Centre applied for short term funding through the Inclusion Support Program (ISP) to better meet his needs while at child care.
As time progressed, Charlie began showing strong indicators of autism with marked difficulties in social and communication skills and at this time, his family were also expressing concerns that Charlie wasn’t beginning to talk like other children.
Centre staff supported the family with a referral to the Child Development Service and upon initial consultation it was recommended the family engage with a private speech pathologist to avoid public wait times.
The family secured appointments with a speech pathologist however, they missed two scheduled appointments and on the third appointment, Charlie was asleep and his mother didn’t want to wake him so the speech pathologist was unable to assess Charlie or complete the required documentation to enable the Centre to seek any further funding to support him.
After ongoing discussions between Centre staff and Charlie’s mother, it became apparent that she no longer wanted to attend the appointments as she couldn’t afford a private service.
In May 2021, the Centre received a Child Development Service Plan advising that Charlie would be
added to the public waitlist to see an Occupational Therapist (3-5 month wait) and speech services (8 month wait). Unfortunately, the Service Plan didn’t meet the evidence requirements for the ISP as it was not signed by a medical or allied health professional and again suggested the family access private services without considering their capacity to do so.
The Centre continued to follow up with Charlie’s mother to provide her with guidance to navigate the WA health system. She was unaware of any communication from the Child Development Service and as a result, the Centre followed up with the Service to seek clarity on the progress of Charlie’s case and to get the initial Service Plan signed by a health professional. During this conversation it was identified that the family had been offered an Occupational Therapy appointment but they had not responded to the invitation and were close to dropping off the list which would result in the family needing to go through the referral process again.
The Centre strongly advocated that Charlie was still in need of services and have continued to support his mother to engage with the Child Development Service.