03 – Child’s age: 2 years and 7 months

2013/03 – Child’s age: 2 years and 7 months

Diagnosis: Autism Spectrum Disorder

Report of hearing: The appellant attended with her husband and advised that they have five children, ranging in ages from 12 to 5 years. Their daughter, [C], in respect of whom the claim was made, is their youngest child. She said that, until she was about 18 months old, they felt that [C] was a normal baby and was reaching age appropriate milestones and she had started to use some words. However, at about 18 months, she seemed to start to regress and they became worried about her. After various assessments and tests, they received a formal diagnosis of Autism when she was 2 years old.

The appellant said that [C] had been seen by the Consultant Community Paediatrician on a number of occasions. A range of tests, including an MRI scan, bloods and EEG, had been done to rule out other medical conditions such as brain tumour. She went on to say that the EEG report was due the following week and that the test was intended to rule out conditions such as Epilepsy.

The appellant reported that while [C] had some words at 18 months, she had regressed and lost the words she did have. She has only a few single words now. She has had a Speech and Language Therapy (SLT) assessment and is attending SLT therapy weekly on a private basis. She is given follow-up exercises to do at home.

The appellant advised that [C] has been assessed and is deemed to meet the criteria for access to the Early Intervention Team. She submitted a copy of the report completed by the multi-disciplinary team. She advised that [C] currently receives 10 hours home tuition per week, provided through the Department of Education and Skills, where the teacher does Montessori type work with her, using peg boards and ‘Playdoh’. Home tuition will continue until she starts in pre-school. The appellant said that [C] was enrolled in the local autism pre-school for September 2013 and that, if she does not get a place, she will go there in September 2014. Following pre-school, the plan is for her to go to the autism unit in her local national school. She is not due to go to the mainstream part of school.

Her parents reported that [C] is making little progress in a number of areas. They have to hold a bottle for her, and they have to feed her as she does not want to hold a spoon. She hates water and bath time is a two-person job. She is fixated on the television and has habits and mannerisms. She pulls and stares at things. Things have to be done in a certain order for her. Her fine motor skills are not well developed and have to be investigated further. She is not toilet trained but, in view of her age, this is not a problem as yet.

In conclusion, the appellant said that she has to do a lot of play therapy with [C] every day and she referred to the weekly timetable which she had submitted, outlining the extent of the floor and play-time activities and the extra work involved with [C].

Comments/Conclusions: The Appeals Officer noted the medical evidence submitted in connection with her claim, and the additional evidence submitted at oral hearing. Having carefully considered all of the facts of the case, including those adduced at oral hearing, she was satisfied that the appellant’s child required continual or continuous care and attention which is substantially in excess of that required by a child of the same age, as required under the legislation governing Domiciliary Care Allowance.

Decision of the Appeals Officer: The appeal is allowed.

Note on decision reason(s): In line with the provisions of social welfare legislation, Domiciliary Care Allowance may be paid in circumstances where a child has a severe disability and needs continuous care, at a level which is substantially greater than that required by another child of the same age.

Having carefully considered all of the facts of this case, including those adduced at the oral hearing, I am satisfied that appellant’s child requires the continual or continuous care and attention which is substantially in excess of that required by a child of the same age as required under the legislation governing Domiciliary Care Allowance.