Who Should Be Included in an IDP or Healthcare Plan in Wales?

Fathers, Kinship Carers, Grandparents, Special Guardians and the Reality of Family Life

When schools, local authorities or health services talk about “parents”, many families immediately picture a traditional two-parent household.

But real life is often more complicated than that.

Some children are raised mainly by grandparents.
Some live under Special Guardianship Orders.
Some have separated parents with shared care.
Some have one parent managing everything while the other parent is inconsistently involved.
Some are cared for by aunties, siblings, foster carers or kinship carers.
Some families have domestic abuse histories or safeguarding restrictions that make communication sensitive and potentially unsafe.

For children with Additional Learning Needs (ALN), these questions matter because the adults included in planning meetings, school communication, healthcare discussions and decision-making can directly affect whether support actually works in practice.

This article explains:

• who may need to be recognised and involved in an Individual Development Plan (IDP) or Individual Healthcare Plan (IHP) in Wales;
• what the law says about “parents”;
• why practical caregiving matters;
• what families can do if someone important is being ignored;
• why safeguarding and confidentiality must still be handled carefully.

This article is about involvement in planning and communication. It is not about changing parental responsibility, overriding court orders or deciding family disputes.

This article provides general information for families in Wales. It is not legal advice. Families dealing with disputes about parental responsibility, court orders, safeguarding restrictions or contact arrangements may need independent legal advice.

Why this matters

For many families, the question is not simply:

“Who is the biological parent?”

The more practical question is often:

Who actually knows this child?
Who manages daily life?
Who attends appointments?
Who notices distress?
Who administers medication?
Who understands triggers, routines and regulation needs?
Who can realistically implement the support plan?

A beautifully written IDP or healthcare plan can fail completely if the people actually caring for the child are excluded from communication or decision-making.

At the same time, schools and professionals must also consider:

• legal parental responsibility;
• safeguarding;
• confidentiality;
• domestic abuse risks;
• court orders;
• the rights of the child or young person;
• information-sharing duties.

The issue is therefore not simply:

“Who counts as family?”

The issue is:

Who needs to be involved for the child to be safe, supported and able to access education and healthcare properly?

The legal definition of “parent” in education law is wider than many people realise

One of the most important points for families in Wales is that education law does not define “parent” narrowly.

Section 576 of the Education Act 1996 says that “parent”, in relation to a child or young person, includes:

• a person who is not the child’s parent but has parental responsibility for them; and
• a person who has care of them [1].

That second part is extremely important.

The law does not only recognise biological or adoptive parents. It can also recognise the reality of who is caring for the child day to day.

This matters because many ALN families do not fit a simple household model.

A grandparent raising a child may count as a “parent” for education purposes.
A kinship carer may count.
A special guardian may count.
A foster carer may count.
Someone who provides day-to-day care may count.

The practical reality of the child’s life matters.

What is parental responsibility?

Parental responsibility is a specific legal concept under the Children Act 1989 [2].

Broadly speaking, parental responsibility means the legal rights, duties, powers, responsibilities and authority a person has regarding a child’s upbringing and welfare.

A person with parental responsibility may be involved in decisions about:

• education;
• medical treatment;
• where the child lives;
• safeguarding;
• legal processes;
• official records.

But parental responsibility and practical caregiving are not always the same thing.

For example:

• a father may have parental responsibility but not provide daily care;
• a grandmother may provide daily care without initially having formal parental responsibility;
• a special guardian may hold enhanced legal responsibility;
• separated parents may both retain parental responsibility despite conflict or differing involvement.

This is why schools and local authorities sometimes need to think about both legal status and practical caregiving reality.

Special Guardianship Orders and kinship care

Some children in Wales are raised under Special Guardianship Orders (SGOs).

A Special Guardianship Order appoints one or more people as a child’s special guardian [3].

A special guardian has parental responsibility and is usually able to exercise that responsibility with greater day-to-day authority than many other adults involved in the child’s life [4].

This often applies where children are being raised by:

• grandparents;
• other relatives;
• family friends;
• kinship carers.

For ALN purposes, this can be highly relevant because the special guardian may be the person:

• attending school meetings;
• managing healthcare;
• overseeing therapies;
• implementing routines;
• advocating for provision.

An IDP or healthcare plan that ignores the child’s actual caregiver may quickly become detached from reality.

Fathers and non-resident parents

Fathers are sometimes unintentionally sidelined in education and healthcare systems, particularly where communication defaults to the “main parent contact”.

That can create problems.

Some fathers:

• attend appointments;
• share care equally;
• manage transport;
• oversee routines;
• support regulation;
• handle homework;
• administer medication;
• attend reviews;
• advocate for the child.

A father should not be excluded simply because:

• he is male;
• he lives separately;
• another parent is the “main school contact”.

At the same time, schools and professionals must still consider:

• safeguarding;
• court orders;
• domestic abuse risks;
• confidentiality concerns;
• the wishes and safety of the child.

The correct approach is not:

“Automatically include everyone.”

Nor is it:

“Automatically exclude non-resident parents.”

The correct question is:

Who has legal rights, who has practical caregiving involvement, what information-sharing is lawful and proportionate, and what arrangements are safest for the child?

Healthcare plans: who needs to be involved?

Healthcare plans are slightly different from IDPs because health information may involve:

• consent;
• medication;
• emergency treatment;
• confidentiality;
• clinical information-sharing.

Welsh Government guidance says learners and parents should be actively involved in planning support and managing healthcare needs [5].

The Welsh Government quick guide for parents explains that when it refers to parents, it means parents and carers [6].

But again, many families do not fit a narrow model.

The adult who:

• gives medication;
• manages feeding difficulties;
• handles seizures;
• supports toileting;
• responds to sensory distress;
• monitors risk;
• attends hospital appointments;

may not always be the same person who first appears on the school contact form.

Healthcare planning often works best when schools identify:

• who provides practical care;
• who must receive updates;
• who manages emergencies;
• who supplies medication;
• who attends medical appointments;
• who the child relies on for co-regulation and safety.

The child or young person should remain central

Sometimes adult conflict can overwhelm planning processes.

Professionals may find themselves caught between:

• separated parents;
• disputed accounts;
• changing contact arrangements;
• safeguarding concerns;
• disagreements about diagnosis or provision.

It is easy for the child’s actual needs to become lost underneath adult tension.

The Additional Learning Needs Code for Wales places the child or young person at the centre of planning and decision-making [7].

The core questions should remain:

• What support does this child need?
• Who understands the child best?
• Who can realistically implement support?
• What communication arrangements are safest and most workable?
• What helps this child access education safely and consistently?

The purpose of involving family members is not to satisfy adult status disputes.

It is to help the child.

Why this matters especially for ALN families

For some ALN children, support depends heavily on consistency between environments.

That may include:

• sensory regulation approaches;
• communication systems;
• toileting support;
• eating support;
• behaviour support;
• emotional regulation;
• attendance support;
• routines;
• anxiety management;
• risk reduction;
• healthcare monitoring.

The adults who understand these patterns may not always be the adults schools assume should automatically lead communication.

This is particularly important where children:

• mask in school;
• collapse at home;
• have high anxiety;
• have PDA profiles;
• have medical complexity;
• are non-speaking or minimally speaking;
• are electively home educated;
• are on EOTAS packages;
• have experienced placement breakdown;
• have trauma histories.

The wrong communication structure can increase misunderstanding and conflict very quickly.

What if someone important is being ignored?

Sometimes a family discovers that someone who plays a major role in the child’s life is not being included in school, IDP or healthcare communication.

This might be a father, grandparent, kinship carer, special guardian, foster carer, step-parent or another trusted adult who provides substantial practical care.

The first step is usually to clarify whether the issue is legal, safeguarding-related or administrative.

Sometimes exclusion happens because:

• the school system was never updated;
• one adult was set as “primary contact” years ago;
• the local authority copied old records;
• staff assumed only one parent should receive communication;
• nobody explained the caregiving arrangement clearly;
• there are safeguarding notes or court restrictions that have not been discussed clearly.

Families can ask the school or local authority to confirm:

• who is currently recorded as parent, carer or emergency contact;
• who receives correspondence;
• who is invited to reviews;
• who can give consent where consent is needed;
• whether any safeguarding, court order or confidentiality issue affects communication;
• what legal or policy basis is being used if someone is being excluded.

This should usually be done in writing so there is a clear record.

Put the caregiving reality in writing

A request is often stronger when it focuses on the child’s practical needs rather than adult status.

Instead of saying only:

“X is being excluded.”

It may be clearer to say:

“X provides day-to-day care for the child, including transport, appointments, medication, regulation support and home routines. We are asking for X to be included in relevant communication and planning so that the IDP or healthcare plan can be implemented consistently and safely.”

This keeps the focus on:

• the child’s welfare;
• educational access;
• healthcare continuity;
• safe implementation;
• practical caregiving reality.

That is much harder to dismiss than a general complaint about family status.

Clarify legal status where relevant

If the person:

• has parental responsibility;
• is a special guardian;
• has a Child Arrangements Order;
• is a foster carer;
• is the person with day-to-day care of the child;

the school or local authority may need to know that.

Families may need to provide evidence, such as:

• a copy of a court order;
• confirmation of Special Guardianship;
• foster care or kinship care paperwork;
• written confirmation of caregiving arrangements;
• updated contact details;
• emergency contact information.

Families should avoid sending unnecessary personal or sensitive documents if a short confirmation is enough.

Where documents contain sensitive information, it is reasonable to ask:

• who will see them;
• how they will be stored;
• whether irrelevant sections can be redacted.

Separate “being involved” from “full unrestricted access”

This is where many disputes become confused.

Including someone in planning does not always mean they must receive every piece of information about every issue.

There may be situations where an adult should:

• receive education updates;
• attend an IDP review;
• help implement support;

without necessarily receiving:

• protected addresses;
• confidential safeguarding information;
• sensitive health details that are not necessary for their role.

There may also be situations where separate communication arrangements are safer.

For example:

• separate parent meetings;
• separate copies of education information;
• one named safe contact route;
• restricted access to address details;
• careful handling of healthcare information;
• clear agreement about who can collect the child.

The right question is not simply:

“Should this person be included or excluded?”

The better question is:

“What information and involvement does this person need, for what purpose, and how can that be done safely?”

Ask for the rationale in writing

If someone continues to be excluded, families can ask for the reason in writing.

Useful questions include:

• Is the exclusion based on safeguarding advice?
• Is it based on a court order?
• Is it based on lack of parental responsibility?
• Is it based on confidentiality concerns?
• Is it based on school policy?
• Has the person’s day-to-day caregiving role been considered?
• Has the child’s welfare been considered?
• Has a proportionate alternative been considered, such as limited information-sharing or separate meetings?

This helps move the issue away from assumption and towards clear reasoning.

Sometimes professionals are acting cautiously for good reason.

Sometimes the situation has simply not been thought through.

Either way, families are entitled to ask for clarity.

Escalate calmly if needed

If the issue is not resolved, families may need to escalate.

Depending on the situation, this might mean contacting:

• the class teacher or form tutor;
• the ALNCo;
• the headteacher;
• the school governing body;
• the local authority ALN officer;
• the local authority complaints process;
• social care, where safeguarding or care arrangements are relevant;
• independent legal advice, where there are serious disputes about parental responsibility, contact, court orders or safety.

The tone should remain child-focused.

The strongest argument is not:

“This adult deserves status.”

The strongest argument is:

“This child’s support becomes less safe, less consistent and less effective when the people actually caring for them are excluded.”

Domestic abuse, safeguarding and confidentiality

This is one of the most important areas to handle carefully.

Some families have:

• non-molestation orders;
• domestic abuse histories;
• coercive control concerns;
• unsafe contact arrangements;
• safeguarding restrictions;
• hidden addresses;
• trauma-related safety concerns.

In these situations, schools and professionals cannot simply assume:

“Every parent should automatically receive everything.”

Communication must remain:

• lawful;
• proportionate;
• safe;
• safeguarding-informed.

Families may need to discuss:

• who can collect the child;
• who receives reports;
• who attends meetings;
• safe contact methods;
• address confidentiality;
• information-sharing boundaries;
• whether separate meetings are safer.

This is particularly important where revealing information could create risk for:

• the child;
• the primary carer;
• siblings;
• wider family members.

The existence of parental responsibility does not remove safeguarding duties.

Practical questions families can ask schools or local authorities

Families may find it useful to ask:

• Who is currently recorded as a parent or carer on the system?
• Who receives communication?
• Who is invited to reviews?
• Who has emergency contact status?
• Who can consent to trips or healthcare arrangements?
• Are there any safeguarding notes affecting communication?
• Are contact arrangements up to date?
• Does the school understand who provides day-to-day care?
• Is the child’s healthcare plan reflecting actual caregiving arrangements?
• Does the IDP reflect who implements support at home?
• Have confidentiality or domestic abuse risks been considered properly?
• Is there a safe-contact arrangement recorded where needed?
• If someone is excluded, what is the reason?

These are not confrontational questions.

They are practical questions designed to prevent confusion and reduce risk.

What schools and professionals should avoid

Professionals should avoid:

• assuming all families fit a traditional model;
• assuming the biological parent is always the main caregiver;
• excluding fathers automatically;
• ignoring kinship carers;
• overlooking grandparents providing substantial care;
• confusing safeguarding with parental conflict;
• sharing information unsafely;
• treating practical caregivers as irrelevant;
• reducing the child’s support network to whoever appears first on the form.

Equally, professionals should avoid:

• sharing confidential information unsafely;
• bypassing safeguarding concerns;
• ignoring court orders;
• overlooking the child’s wishes and safety.

Good practice requires balance, not assumptions.

The real-world question

The most useful question is often not:

“Who is the official parent?”

The more useful question is:

Who needs to be involved for this child’s education, healthcare, safety and daily life to work properly?

For many ALN families, support is carried not only by one parent, but by a network of:

• fathers;
• grandparents;
• kinship carers;
• siblings;
• foster carers;
• special guardians;
• step-parents;
• trusted adults.

Systems work best when they recognise the reality of the child’s life rather than forcing every family into a narrow administrative template.

The goal is not to involve everybody in everything.

The goal is to make sure the right people are included, informed and heard so the child can access education, healthcare and support safely and consistently.

Related articles

If this article was useful, you may also want to read:

• IDP vs IHP in Wales
  Explains the difference between an Individual Development Plan and an Individual Healthcare Plan, and why some children may need both.

• Can an IDP Be Removed If You Home Educate in Wales?
  Explains why an IDP should not be removed automatically just because a child is home educated, and what families can do if this is suggested.

• IDP in Wales Explained
  A wider parent guide to Individual Development Plans in Wales.

References

[1] UK Government, Education Act 1996, Section 576 - Meaning of “parent”. Available: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/56/section/576

[2] UK Government, Children Act 1989. Available: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/41/contents

[3] UK Government, Children Act 1989 - Special Guardianship. Available: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/41/part/II/crossheading/special-guardianship

[4] UK Government, Children Act 1989, Section 14C - Effect of special guardianship order. Available: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/41/section/14C

[5] Welsh Government, Supporting learners with healthcare needs. Available: https://www.gov.wales/supporting-learners-healthcare-needs-guidance-html

[6] Welsh Government, Supporting learners with healthcare needs: a quick guide for parents and carers. Available: https://www.gov.wales/sites/default/files/publications/2018-12/supporting-learners-with-healthcare-needs-a-quick-guide-for-parents.pdf

[7] Welsh Government, Additional Learning Needs Code for Wales 2021. Available: https://www.gov.wales/additional-learning-needs-code-wales-2021