They Called Me a Difficult Parent. They Were Diagnosing the Wrong Person.

The meeting I remember most clearly wasn’t the worst one. The worst ones eventually blur together.

Like the ones where CAMHS said there was nothing they could do for us because the school were telling them there were no concerns – while the school were simultaneously telling me that my child was struggling. All the while I was picking up the pieces at home every evening, but still, nobody listened to what I had to say.

The meeting I remember most clearly was the one where a CAMHS practitioner told me (across a table covered in documents I had accumulated to support my evidence but nobody had read), “The school said everything’s fine, so the problem must be at home.”

My daughter was six. She had been struggling since nursery. I had ample evidence to show that home was her safe space and school provision and masking were the issues…but the professional conclusion at that point was that I was the problem.

I was labelled a difficult parent before they even met my child.

Subscribe to Substack Newsletter

What the System Consistently Gets Wrong

There is a specific failure mode that runs through every institution involved in identifying and supporting neurodivergent children: the child who masks well in school is invisible to the school, and the parent who reports what happens outside school is treated as unreliable or “the problem”.

This is not a new or personal observation – every parent in this situation knows it. It doesn’t get said enough in professional spaces, clearly enough, or with the weight it deserves. The child most at risk of late or missed diagnosis is the child who holds it together in public and falls apart at home – and the parent of that child will, almost invariably, spend years being told their concerns are disproportionate or misattributed.

The masking child, often (but not always) a girl, and often AuDHD rather than one or the other (again, not always), presents differently in a structured environment than in an unstructured one. School sees compliance, or something close enough to it. Parents see the cost of that compliance. The meltdowns, the morning refusals, the exhaustion, the self-criticism at an age when children should not be able to articulate how much they hate themselves for struggling.

CAMHS, in most areas, is working from a waiting list long enough that by the time a referral is processed the presenting picture has often changed. They are also under-resourced for the kind of longitudinal assessment that would catch what a one-hour appointment misses. That’s if they even meet your child in the first place. So they discharge, ignore evidence from sources outside school, or they offer a few sessions of play therapy for a child whose nervous system is wired differently and who needs something other than talking about how farm animals represent their families to manage a world that wasn’t built for them.

What Six Years Actually Looked Like

My daughter was diagnosed with AuDHD when she was eight. By the current average for girls, that’s actually relatively early. We got there after six years of fighting to be seen and heard.

Those six years contained multiple referrals, non-starter assessments due to inaccurate information from the school, a bias practitioner assessment, educational psychologist reports, a Team Around the Child (TAC) that I had requested for years (pointless in the end as nobody did what they said), countless meetings at which I was the only person in the room who had read every document on the table, and multiple instances of being told that my child’s difficulties were situational, relational, anxiety-based, related to her home environment, or just a phase.

At no point, in six years, did a professional say to me: “You know your child. We should take what you’re telling us seriously and investigate further.” Not once.

Running out of options resulted in my documenting everything. Every conversation, every meeting, every phone call, every ad-hoc chat. Not notes – records! Date, time, who said what, what was agreed, what wasn’t followed up. I started sending follow-up emails after every verbal conversation: “Just to confirm what we discussed today…” and then a record of the conversation as I had understood it, asking them to let me know if I had anything wrong.

Nobody ever corrected my record, but every professional involved with us became noticeably more careful about what they said once they knew I’d be writing it down.

It took me years to understand that distinction clearly enough to act on it consistently. If you take one thing from this article, take that.

What’s Actually Happening – and Why

Ever heard of institutional gaslighting? It is the process by which an institution, in order to protect itself from the cost of acknowledging a problem, consistently redirects the attribution of that problem toward the person reporting it. It is happening more and more often.

The parent who keeps raising concerns is a management problem. The child whose needs would require resource or enforcing at school is a budget problem. The SENCO who agrees that provision is inadequate is a liability. The path of least institutional resistance is always to question the parent’s perception, wait for the child to deteriorate to the point where refusal is no longer defensible, and then respond.

This sounds harsh, but sadly, it is the pattern that I and many other parents have observed, repeatedly, across multiple institutions. It is also the pattern described to me, in private, by professionals inside those institutions who were not able to say it publicly.

In Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) terms, the institution is operating from a closed frame – a set of assumptions about what is true that is resistant to evidence. The parent’s evidence is filtered through those assumptions and reinterpreted to fit the professional’s conclusion. The professional is not lying – they are operating inside a frame that makes their interpretation feel like the only reasonable one.

Understanding that doesn’t make it less infuriating. But it does make it more legible – and legibility is the beginning of strategy.

The Reframe

I’m often asked what took me longest to see, and what I wish someone had told me earlier. My answer? The fight causes damage – not just to you but also to your child.

My daughter watched while both her own word and mine were dismissed, disbelieved, and labelled difficult for years. She was in some of those meetings. She was told that what she was experiencing wasn’t real enough, or serious enough, or consistent enough to warrant a response. She learned, through the system’s treatment of her and of me, what the world thinks about people like her.

That is a lesson I cannot fully undo. I can work on it – and I do, but the damage of the fight is part of the story of the fight, and it deserves to be named.

This isn’t an argument for giving up – it’s an argument for fighting differently. Fight in a way that spends less energy on convincing people who are institutionally incentivised not to be convinced, and more on building the evidence that forces a different response. Fight in a way that doesn’t result in your child witnessing your humiliation and gaslighting as a condition of getting their needs met.

Document everything. As crappy as it is that you need to do this – learn the legal language. Know the difference between what the system is obligated to do and what it is just expected to do. Use the word “must” when the law uses the word “must.” Don’t spend energy on moral arguments when procedural ones are available.

And tell your child, regularly and specifically that the problem is not them or you. The problem is a system that wasn’t designed for the purposes we expect. We are fixing that but it’s taking longer than it should.

Reflection

My daughter is now older and knows what she is – an awesome, quirky, hilarious, fun, deeply intelligent, beautiful, strong, and resilient person for whom the standard model of education didn’t work, and who has needed, and will continue to need, environments built differently.

She also knows that her mother spent years in rooms full of people who were wrong about both of them, and kept going anyway. That she was not wrong about her own child, that her child did nothing wrong, and that the paper trail eventually became evidence.

Unfortunately, she also learned that institutions have the power, the money, and the legal teams to try to silence you when you call them out.

We chose home education in the end. Not as a defeat, but as a conscious decision to ensure she would get the best from life. The school system wasn’t built for her, so we chose to build something that was – and we honestly couldn’t be happier.

She is thriving – not performing, not masking, not managing. Thriving! Better than I ever could have imagined.

Six years is a long time to be told you’re wrong about your own child. When the diagnosis comes, the relief and grief arrive at exactly the same moment. The relief that it’s real, named, and no longer deniable, and the grief for the six years of fighting that it took to get there.