Published: 28 February 2026. The English Chronicle Desk. The English Chronicle Online
A family in Leeds has spoken of their distress after being refused respite care for their gravely ill child, highlighting growing concerns about gaps in support services for families caring for children with complex health needs. The parents say they were left without a break from round‑the‑clock caregiving because local health authorities deemed their situation not urgent enough to qualify for the limited respite provision available.
The child, aged 8, has a severe neurological condition that affects mobility, breathing and communication, requiring continuous monitoring and specialised care at home. The parents have been providing 24‑hour support for years, but recent physical and emotional exhaustion prompted them to apply for short‑term respite to allow them to rest and manage their own health.
Under existing criteria set by the local Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG), priority for respite beds is given to children in immediate crisis or with life‑threatening instability, leaving families like this one ineligible despite demonstrated needs. The couple said they were informed that “other cases are deemed more critical,” and were offered only a phone‑based support line rather than actual, in‑person respite care.
The refusal has prompted outrage among disability rights advocates and parent support groups, who argue that current eligibility rules fail to recognise the cumulative toll of long‑term caregiving. “Parents caring for children with profound disabilities often reach breaking point,” said Sarah Middleton, director of a national family support charity. “Without access to scheduled respite, families are left exhausted and isolated.”
Campaigners point to research showing that regular respite care — short periods where qualified professionals look after a child so caregivers can have rest — improves both child and family well‑being. They argue that the shortage of respite provision across the UK, combined with strict eligibility thresholds, forces many families into untenable situations.
Support groups have called on the Department of Health and Social Care and local authorities to review and reform eligibility criteria, expand funding for respite services, and create a clearer pathway for families under sustained pressure. They also say that in many areas, providers struggle to recruit and retain trained respite care staff, further shrinking availability.
The parents say that exhaustion has affected their mental health and quality of life, and that without practical support they struggle to sustain the intensive caregiving their child requires. “We’re not asking for luxuries — just the basic support every family should be able to access,” one parent said.
Local health officials said they recognise the strain on families caring for seriously unwell children but stressed that resources are limited and must be allocated according to clinical need. They said they are reviewing ways to improve access to community‑based support, but did not commit to immediate changes for this case.



























































































