Is Going to the ART the Right Decision?

Deciding whether to take your child’s NDIS matter to the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) can feel overwhelming. Families often reach this point after months of frustration, inadequate funding, and unanswered questions about why their evidence was not properly considered. This article explores when the ART may be the right pathway, what the process really involves, and how the right advocacy support can make a meaningful difference to both outcomes and timelines.
Is Going to the ART the Right Decision

Is Going to the ART the Right Decision?

Deciding whether to take your matter to the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) is one of the most difficult decisions families face in their NDIS journey. By the time parents consider the ART, they are often exhausted, financially stretched, and emotionally worn down after trying to have their child’s needs properly recognised.

Families regularly tell me they are asking themselves:

  • Is this worth the time, money and emotional energy?
  • How long will this process actually take?
  • What happens if we run out of funding while we wait?
  • Will the outcome genuinely improve my child’s supports?
  • Can I emotionally cope with the timeline and uncertainty?

One of the most common and frustrating questions parents ask is:
“Why didn’t the Delegate review my evidence properly in the first place?”

There is no single answer to this. However, after working with the ART process for over eight years, I have seen a clear shift. Delegate capacity to fund higher-intensity supports has reduced significantly over time. In practical terms, if a family is requesting more than 3–4 hours of therapy per week for a child under six, there is a strong likelihood the matter may ultimately proceed to the ART — even when the evidence is robust and well supported.

To meet this threshold, families must demonstrate multiple high-level functional needs, and even then, decisions are sometimes made on the basis of Value for Money and whether supports are considered Effective and Beneficial, rather than the full clinical picture.

Without guidance, many parents simply accept what has been funded or self-fund the shortfall, despite strong therapy recommendations.

 

Do I Need a Lawyer?

This is often one of the biggest concerns for families. The short answer is no — you do not need a lawyer to go to the ART.

However, I do not recommend navigating the ART process alone. The process is complex, emotionally taxing, and time-consuming. An experienced advocate understands the ART framework, knows how to engage with NDIS lawyers and case managers, and can help ensure evidence is presented clearly, consistently and strategically. This often shortens timelines and reduces unnecessary escalation.

Below are real examples of families who chose to proceed to the ART after speaking with me.

 

Case Example 1: An 18-Month ART Case Resolved Before a Child’s Fifth Birthday

One parent had been navigating the ART independently for over 12 months before seeking my support. During that time, they attempted to resolve the matter directly with NDIS lawyers, but the case made little progress.

When I became involved, the child was approaching their fifth birthday — a critical transition point. I reviewed 18 months of evidence and Statements of Issues, identified gaps and inconsistencies, and developed a practical solution. I presented this to the family, service provider and NDIS lawyer.

Over the Christmas period, the provider prepared an updated progress report aligned with my proposed step-down therapy model for the 12 months leading into school. While the solution itself was straightforward, it required the right framing and supporting evidence.

Once presented, the NDIS lawyers and case manager accepted the proposal. The matter was finalised, a section 103 agreement was signed, and a new plan was issued on the child’s fifth birthday — a result the family described as the best birthday present ever.

The key lesson? You do not need a lawyer — but having an advocate can dramatically change the speed and outcome of the process.

 

Case Example 2: Resolving a Case on the Eve of Hearing

In another case, the parents contacted me just as the matter was heading to hearing. The mother was a qualified lawyer and had been managing the ART process herself for over six months. An Independent Medical Examination (IME) had been completed, but the NDIS offer did not fully align with the IME recommendations.

The family intended to proceed to hearing.

I spent extensive time reviewing all evidence and negotiating directly with the NDIS lawyer. While the matter ultimately resolved the night before the hearing, preparation for hearing still had to occur. This included responding to the Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (SFIC), identifying witnesses and preparing them for questioning — over 25 hours of work.

The relief for the family was immense when I was able to call after 5pm to confirm the matter had resolved. The child received $132,309.48 in funding.

Had the matter gone to hearing, it was scheduled for two full days, followed by up to three months for the Member’s decision and a further six weeks for NDIS compliance. This case highlights that hearing is not appropriate for every matter, and early negotiation can save families months of uncertainty.

 

Case Example 3: Engaging an Advocate Before Deciding on the ART

In this case, the parents contacted me before deciding whether to proceed to the ART. I clearly explained the journey ahead and the level of work required from all parties. As I had not been involved in the internal review, we needed to start from the beginning.

The original request for 408 therapy hours per year had been rejected on the grounds of Value for Money and Effective and Beneficial. After engaging my services, I attended all case conferences, spoke on behalf of the parents, worked directly with the NDIS lawyer outside conferences, and collaborated closely with service providers to ensure reports were clear, consistent and free from contradictions.

I also supported the parents to prepare their personal evidence, including:

  • a Family Impact Statement
  • weekly family, childcare and therapy schedules
  • childcare and paediatrician reports
  • updated therapy reports

An IME was completed during the ART process. Following a lengthy conciliation, the child was funded 372 therapy hours per year plus 8 hours per week of support work — supports not included in the original internal review decision. The child was also 12 months older by this stage, and the funding appropriately reflected increased needs.

Although the father was a physiotherapist, advocating for your own child is emotionally challenging. Having an advocate removed the day-to-day burden of managing the NDIS and allowed the family to focus on their child.

 

Final Thoughts

The ART process is not easy, but it can be life-changing when done well. With the right support, families understand the process, feel confident navigating timelines, and avoid unnecessary delays. An advocate provides clarity, structure and emotional distance — while liaising directly with NDIS lawyers and case managers.

If you are unsure whether the ART is the right step, seeking advice early can prevent years of stress and inadequate funding.

 

If you want to find out more information about how I can help you, book a FREE 20 min Consulation with me

 

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Pinterest
Print

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may have recently heard about Thriving Kids, a new Australian Government reform designed to improve how children with developmental difference, delay or disability are identified and supported early. Thriving Kids focuses on strengthening mainstream and community supports for children aged 8 and under, particularly those with low to moderate support needs, so families can access help earlier and closer to where they live.

Importantly, children with significant and permanent disability support needs will continue to be supported through the NDIS, and existing participants will not be removed without careful consideration, reassessment and transition planning. The first Thriving Kids services are expected to begin rolling out from 1 July 2026, ahead of broader NDIS changes planned from mid-2027.

As these reforms continue to evolve, having the right therapy evidence and a well-prepared plan remains critical to ensuring children receive the supports they need to thrive — whether within or alongside the NDIS.

Deciding whether to take your child’s NDIS matter to the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) can feel overwhelming. Families often reach this point after months of frustration, inadequate funding, and unanswered questions about why their evidence was not properly considered. This article explores when the ART may be the right pathway, what the process really involves, and how the right advocacy support can make a meaningful difference to both outcomes and timelines.
Is Going to the ART the Right Decision

Is Going to the ART the Right Decision?

Deciding whether to take your matter to the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) is one of the most difficult decisions families face in their NDIS journey. By the time parents consider the ART, they are often exhausted, financially stretched, and emotionally worn down after trying to have their child’s needs properly recognised.

Families regularly tell me they are asking themselves:

  • Is this worth the time, money and emotional energy?
  • How long will this process actually take?
  • What happens if we run out of funding while we wait?
  • Will the outcome genuinely improve my child’s supports?
  • Can I emotionally cope with the timeline and uncertainty?

One of the most common and frustrating questions parents ask is:
“Why didn’t the Delegate review my evidence properly in the first place?”

There is no single answer to this. However, after working with the ART process for over eight years, I have seen a clear shift. Delegate capacity to fund higher-intensity supports has reduced significantly over time. In practical terms, if a family is requesting more than 3–4 hours of therapy per week for a child under six, there is a strong likelihood the matter may ultimately proceed to the ART — even when the evidence is robust and well supported.

To meet this threshold, families must demonstrate multiple high-level functional needs, and even then, decisions are sometimes made on the basis of Value for Money and whether supports are considered Effective and Beneficial, rather than the full clinical picture.

Without guidance, many parents simply accept what has been funded or self-fund the shortfall, despite strong therapy recommendations.

 

Do I Need a Lawyer?

This is often one of the biggest concerns for families. The short answer is no — you do not need a lawyer to go to the ART.

However, I do not recommend navigating the ART process alone. The process is complex, emotionally taxing, and time-consuming. An experienced advocate understands the ART framework, knows how to engage with NDIS lawyers and case managers, and can help ensure evidence is presented clearly, consistently and strategically. This often shortens timelines and reduces unnecessary escalation.

Below are real examples of families who chose to proceed to the ART after speaking with me.

 

Case Example 1: An 18-Month ART Case Resolved Before a Child’s Fifth Birthday

One parent had been navigating the ART independently for over 12 months before seeking my support. During that time, they attempted to resolve the matter directly with NDIS lawyers, but the case made little progress.

When I became involved, the child was approaching their fifth birthday — a critical transition point. I reviewed 18 months of evidence and Statements of Issues, identified gaps and inconsistencies, and developed a practical solution. I presented this to the family, service provider and NDIS lawyer.

Over the Christmas period, the provider prepared an updated progress report aligned with my proposed step-down therapy model for the 12 months leading into school. While the solution itself was straightforward, it required the right framing and supporting evidence.

Once presented, the NDIS lawyers and case manager accepted the proposal. The matter was finalised, a section 103 agreement was signed, and a new plan was issued on the child’s fifth birthday — a result the family described as the best birthday present ever.

The key lesson? You do not need a lawyer — but having an advocate can dramatically change the speed and outcome of the process.

 

Case Example 2: Resolving a Case on the Eve of Hearing

In another case, the parents contacted me just as the matter was heading to hearing. The mother was a qualified lawyer and had been managing the ART process herself for over six months. An Independent Medical Examination (IME) had been completed, but the NDIS offer did not fully align with the IME recommendations.

The family intended to proceed to hearing.

I spent extensive time reviewing all evidence and negotiating directly with the NDIS lawyer. While the matter ultimately resolved the night before the hearing, preparation for hearing still had to occur. This included responding to the Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (SFIC), identifying witnesses and preparing them for questioning — over 25 hours of work.

The relief for the family was immense when I was able to call after 5pm to confirm the matter had resolved. The child received $132,309.48 in funding.

Had the matter gone to hearing, it was scheduled for two full days, followed by up to three months for the Member’s decision and a further six weeks for NDIS compliance. This case highlights that hearing is not appropriate for every matter, and early negotiation can save families months of uncertainty.

 

Case Example 3: Engaging an Advocate Before Deciding on the ART

In this case, the parents contacted me before deciding whether to proceed to the ART. I clearly explained the journey ahead and the level of work required from all parties. As I had not been involved in the internal review, we needed to start from the beginning.

The original request for 408 therapy hours per year had been rejected on the grounds of Value for Money and Effective and Beneficial. After engaging my services, I attended all case conferences, spoke on behalf of the parents, worked directly with the NDIS lawyer outside conferences, and collaborated closely with service providers to ensure reports were clear, consistent and free from contradictions.

I also supported the parents to prepare their personal evidence, including:

  • a Family Impact Statement
  • weekly family, childcare and therapy schedules
  • childcare and paediatrician reports
  • updated therapy reports

An IME was completed during the ART process. Following a lengthy conciliation, the child was funded 372 therapy hours per year plus 8 hours per week of support work — supports not included in the original internal review decision. The child was also 12 months older by this stage, and the funding appropriately reflected increased needs.

Although the father was a physiotherapist, advocating for your own child is emotionally challenging. Having an advocate removed the day-to-day burden of managing the NDIS and allowed the family to focus on their child.

 

Final Thoughts

The ART process is not easy, but it can be life-changing when done well. With the right support, families understand the process, feel confident navigating timelines, and avoid unnecessary delays. An advocate provides clarity, structure and emotional distance — while liaising directly with NDIS lawyers and case managers.

If you are unsure whether the ART is the right step, seeking advice early can prevent years of stress and inadequate funding.

 

If you want to find out more information about how I can help you, book a FREE 20 min Consulation with me

 

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Pinterest
Print

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Start the conversation today

Let me help you identify which Footprints Advocacy Package will suit your needs best

NDIS Support Package