You have explained the difficulty, tried the advice, or waited for a decision. The child still needs help. A useful next step is to make the unresolved question and the action needed explicit—and secure a response that can be reviewed.
You do not have to wait for a better system before asking for help now. Review, a safer interim arrangement, another opinion and a complaint serve different purposes. You can pursue support and accountability together; neither requires an exhaustive dossier or a performance of distress.
1. State the concern and ask for a concrete decision
Choose the issue that most needs an answer: an unexplained difficulty, increasing distress, a plan that is not helping, an unanswered request, missing agreed support, or concern about how the child is treated. Briefly describe its effect on daily life. Include the child's own words or communication without claiming to know someone else's intentions.
Ask the relevant professional or service to identify who will respond and agree a response date. If a date is offered, keep it. If the request is urgent, explain why and ask what happens in the meantime. Dates agreed for your case are not universal statutory deadlines.
Sample wording for a short written request
Illustrative wording to adapt; not a legal form
We remain concerned about [difficulty and its effect]. We tried [agreed action] during [period]; we observed [result], and the child communicated [account]. Please review the current explanation and support. What do you recommend now, who will take responsibility, and when will we receive a response? If you decline or defer [request], please explain the reasons, the alternatives and what support is available while we wait.
Use the service's ordinary written channel. Keep a copy and any acknowledgement or reference number. If writing is difficult, request help or another accessible way to record the discussion.
2. Bring a manageable record
A few relevant examples are often more useful than a large new file. Identify what happened, when and where; what assistance was present; what was tried; what changed; and what remains unexplained. Separate a contemporaneous note from a later recollection, and an observation from an interpretation. Include existing reports by reference so that you do not have to recreate them.
Good marks or a calm appointment do not answer every question about daily functioning. Ask the assessor to examine the difference between settings. NICE's autism guidance specifically addresses discrepancies between reports and clinical observations.1 The service should obtain and integrate the further information it needs, through appropriate consent and information-sharing arrangements.
The observation sheet can help organise a discussion. It stays with you; this site does not collect it. Do not withdraw necessary support to demonstrate how badly the child would struggle.
3. Ask for reasons that answer the actual question
| What you are told | What to ask next |
|---|---|
| “We need to wait.” | For what information or decision? Who is obtaining it? What is the next decision date, and what can be done now? |
| “The current support is enough.” | Which needs and outcomes does that judgement address? How were the continuing difficulties and the child's account considered? |
| “The family is not consistent.” | Which specific action is in question? Was it feasible, understood and supported? What evidence separates an implementation problem from an unsuitable plan? |
| “We cannot provide it.” | Is the reason clinical, staffing, availability, eligibility or funding? Ask for the decision, its basis, an alternative and the applicable review or appeal route. |
More therapy hours are not automatically better. A reasoned refusal may be appropriate. Repeated deferral without a decision still leaves the child's needs unresolved. Following a verbal discussion, send or request a brief summary of what was agreed and invite correction of factual errors.
4. Review the plan—and consider alternatives
Ask for a review when the intended benefit is absent, distress increases, new needs appear or the explanation leaves important evidence unanswered. Review the intervention, environment, co-occurring difficulties and delivery together. Doctors, including specialists, must reconsider diagnostic and treatment assumptions; this is not solely a discussion about parenting.
If uncertainty or disagreement persists, ask about another appropriately qualified opinion. NICE's autism guidance includes unexpected lack of response among the reasons to consider a second opinion.1 That recommendation is not a guarantee of free or immediate access in Greece.
Before changing provider, check availability, cost, relevant expertise, records and how useful support will continue. Ask the existing service for a concise handover, outstanding questions and a plan for any gap. If a relationship is unsafe, protection takes priority over a routine handover. Medication changes belong with the prescriber; do not alter treatment from this guide.
5. Choose the route that fits the problem in Greece
These are official starting points checked on 1 November 2026. A clinical disagreement, a failure to deliver agreed provision, a payment dispute and suspected misconduct are different matters. Check the body's remit and current submission rules; one route does not replace another or guarantee an outcome.
- Care in an ΕΣΥ public hospital: the hospital's Γραφείο Προστασίας Δικαιωμάτων Ληπτών Υπηρεσιών Υγείας (health-service users' rights office) receives and handles concerns and complaints. Obtain the correct local contact from the hospital. This is not a universal complaints office for every private therapy centre.
- Public-service administration or a child's rights: consult the Συνήγορος του Πολίτη (Greek Ombudsman) about its remit and the appropriate procedure. Its children's-rights work can also concern private persons or organisations. Explain any earlier contact with the service. Do not treat mediation as a court appeal or assume it stops another deadline.
- Bullying or violence in school: stop-bullying.gov.gr accepts reports from parents/guardians of primary and secondary pupils and from secondary pupils themselves. Reports reach the school and the education directorate's action team. Use the detailed school guide for scope and privacy information. This platform is not a general appeal against an assessment.
- A consumer dispute with a private provider: the Συνήγορος του Καταναλωτή may be a route for a dispute within its remit. It mediates rather than imposes sanctions; its published conditions include a one-year submission limit from full knowledge of the harmful act or omission, and no pending court proceedings. Check eligibility and contact the provider first as its procedure requires. It does not replace clinical reassessment or professional disciplinary review.
For a formal assessment, funding or administrative decision, ask the issuing body for the specific review or appeal procedure and its deadline. Do not infer one universal process for ΚΕΔΑΣΥ educational assessments, health-service decisions and private care. Where rights or deadlines are at stake, obtain qualified advice promptly. You need not complete every informal step before seeking protective help.
Support while a response is pending
Ask the school and clinicians what can change immediately: clearer instructions, a manageable task, a quieter place, a trusted adult, suitable supervision or a review of an activity causing distress. Agree a small number of feasible measures, a responsible person, a backup and a date to check the result with the child.
Ask what happens if needs worsen before that date and how to obtain an earlier review. Preserve effective support during a transfer wherever possible. Cost, transport, waiting lists and the needs of siblings can make an alternative unavailable; record that constraint and ask the service to help find a workable response, rather than simply adding another task for the parent.
Teachers can provide specific observations and make classroom adjustments within their role. Clinicians can respond to unanswered clinical questions, arrange relevant review and provide a usable handover. Leaders can name a decision-maker, address missing provision and examine recurring failures. Parents contribute essential knowledge; services retain responsibility for their own actions and integration.
Sources and limits
The requests and review sequence are practical editorial guidance, not a mandatory legal ladder. NICE is UK clinical guidance. Greek route descriptions use the official pages linked above; a complete current-law audit, individual eligibility and local service availability are not established here. The companion explains how impressions of parents can obscure evidence.