Analysis:What started out as largely unremarkable High Court case almost four years ago - in which a Co Wicklow couple sought State funding for the education of their autistic son - has now turned into a landmark case that will affect hundreds of children with special education needs. Carl O'Brien, Social Affairs Correspondent, writes.
For almost 70 days, Cian and Yvonne Ó Cuanacháin and the Department of Education argued before the High Court about whether the State should be obliged to provide funding for a highly-specialised form of education for their seven-year-old son, Seán.
Applied behavioural analysis (ABA) is a form of teaching in which a particular action is broken down into simple steps that are repeated and learned.
For up to half of children with autism, it has proven to be an extraordinarily effective method, with many eventually moving on to mainstream primary schools.
While the court found ABA was an appropriate intervention, it allowed the department to pursue its own "eclectic" approach, which costs less and incorporates a number of teaching techniques, including ABA, in mainstream and special schools.
The department says this is an internationally recognised approach adopted in countries such as the US and UK. However, parents and a number of academics say these centres have a higher pupil-teacher ratio and cannot provide the benefits of one-to-one education.
Yesterday's ruling on costs, which leaves the Ó Cuanacháins facing a legal bill of several million euros, will prompt up to 150 other parents who are planning to take similar cases against the State to reconsider their positions.
Over the course of the lengthy ruling, the court heard on several occasions that this was a case about Seán alone, and would not have implications for others.
Few, however, believe this. The fact that the department and other arms of the State were willing to divert such resources into a case that was fought in forensic detail over the course of seven months suggests this was a kind of test case for provision of special education.
Tellingly, ever since the case was taken a few years ago, the department has refused to fund any additional units specialising in ABA.
The department is in discussions over long-term funding for 12 centres that have been up and running for several years, under the terms of the programme for government.
However, just two weeks ago, it told 11 similar groups which have been seeking State funding to become pilot projects that their applications had been rejected.
The department doesn't have a proud history of education provision for those with special needs.
In the case of Paul Donoghue over a decade ago, it argued that children with special needs were ineducable.
The court, however, rejected this and said education should be based on need.
In the case of Jamie Sinnott a few years later, the department had to accept that a special needs child's right to education appropriate to their needs, as assessed by a relevant expert.
But with this latest landmark case, the department has won something very valuable: it now has the power of choice over what education is appropriate for children.