Bridging Lived Reality & SEND Law

Why Canary SEND Works Differently

Most families come to me feeling unseen, unheard, or disbelieved — not because their child isn’t struggling, but because the SEND system was never designed to understand neurodivergent children in the first place.

The law wants observable evidence // Neurodivergent experience is often internal and invisible.

The system expects consistency across settings // Neurodivergent children are context-dependent.

Schools report what they see for six hours //
Parents witness what happens for the other eighteen.

These are the gaps Canary SEND was built to bridge.

SEND processes rely heavily on:

  • external behaviour

  • how the child “presents” in school

  • short assessments

  • professional visibility

  • written reports

  • compliance as competence

  • “fine in school” as fact

But neurodivergent children often:

  • mask to survive

  • freeze or fawn under expectations

  • internalise distress

  • appear calm while in shutdown

  • hold everything in until they get home

  • meet adult demands at the cost of psychological safety

  • unravel in safe environments

  • avoid drawing attention

The child who holds it together all day is often the child in the most distress.

Yet the legal framework still treats teacher observation as objective reality — even when it contradicts parental lived experience.

This is how needs stay invisible.
This is how support is denied.
This is how burnout develops.

And this is the gap I specialise in navigating.

The SEND legal framework was built around assumptions that do not apply to many neurodivergent children:

  • behaviour = communication

  • consistency = reliability

  • distress = visible

  • masking = dishonesty or absence of need

  • home struggles = parenting issue

  • compliance = understanding

  • attendance = accessibility

  • refusal = choice

Neurodivergent experience breaks these assumptions.

Case law still treats “evidence” as whatever adults can see — even when autistic or ADHD children cannot show their struggle in school.

This means the system regularly:

  • misinterprets compliance

  • overlooks burnout

  • misunderstands demand avoidance

  • minimises masking

  • treats shutdown as calmness

  • sees relational distress as behaviour

  • invalidates parental reports

  • treats home–school differences as contradiction rather than context

This is not a problem with you, or your child, it is a fundamental mismatch within the SEND framework.

And it is why so many families feel their child has to “fall apart” before anyone listens…

This is where Canary SEND works differently.

I understand:

  • what your child is experiencing internally

  • what schools are reporting externally

  • how the law interprets (or misinterprets) both

and, most importantly, how to bridge those worlds so your child’s invisible needs become legally recognised.

I don’t simply describe needs.
I translate them into:

  • functional language

  • legally specific descriptions

  • enforceable provision

  • evidence that reflects lived reality

  • wording that resists minimisation

  • structures that withstand pushback

I know what tribunals accept, what local authorities challenge, and where the evidential gaps are.

I know how to:

  • use the law’s strengths

  • navigate its weaknesses

  • work around outdated case law

  • anticipate LA arguments

  • prevent misinterpretation

  • position evidence strategically

This is more than advocacy.
This is interpretation, translation, and alignment — between child and system, law and life.

What This Means for Your Child

When I work with families, I am holding two truths at once:

  1. Your child’s neurodivergent experience has inherent validity, even if it isn’t visible to school staff.

  2. The law has specific mechanisms and limitations that shape what provision can be secured, and how.

My job is to ensure:

  • your child’s reality is represented

  • neuroaffirming language remains accurate and lawful

  • evidence reflects the internal world, not just the external presentation

  • provision matches what your child actually needs

  • the local authority can’t minimise what they can’t see

  • your voice as a parent carries legal weight

  • the law is used ethically and strategically

This is how invisible needs become visible.
This is how provision becomes enforceable.
This is how the system is held to account.

This is why families come to me when:

  • a child masks

  • a child is “fine in school” but falls apart at home

  • burnout or EBSA is misunderstood

  • needs are dismissed as behavioural

  • the LA resists support

  • provision keeps being reduced

  • nothing “looks wrong on paper”

  • parent reports aren’t taken seriously

I see what others don’t — and I know how to make the system listen.

The Result:
Lawful, Ethical, Neuroaffirming Support

Including truly accessible education and provision rooted in:

  • dignity

  • accuracy

  • evidence

  • feasibility

  • legal enforceability

  • ND understanding

  • relational safety

  • sensory and cognitive reality

No deficit framing.
No exaggeration.
No minimisation.
No need to collapse before help arrives.

Just clarity, truth, and strategy — working together.