05 – Child’s age: 4 years

Diagnosis: Autism Spectrum Disorder, Pervasive Developmental Disorder

Report of oral hearing: The appellant attended, accompanied by his wife, and a local representative acting as advocate on their behalf. He said that he and his wife were not familiar with the diagnosis of Autism although they had recognised that [E]’s development had been quite different to that of his older brother. The appellant said that they were helping their son to develop as any other parents would do with their children. They had arranged to have him referred to the Early Intervention Team for multi-disciplinary assessment which included psychological assessment and speech and language therapy. It was accepted that he was in need of support but considered that he fell short of a diagnosis of Autism as the appellant and his wife had reported that he appeared to be improving. The appellant reported that further assessments were carried out and the results confirmed a diagnosis of Autism. At that stage, he applied for Domiciliary Care Allowance.

The appellant said that he and his wife were recommended to attend various programmes in order to assist them in the on-going care of [E]. They were advised that he would need to be placed in a pre-school catering for children with Autism. They were told that communication with [E] would have to be close-up and not from a distance and out of sight. He would require much support in developing his skills and would need the assistance of an Occupational Therapist.

The appellant’s wife stated that since her husband had become unemployed, she had re-assessed her own situation and did not know how she had managed on her own. She said that she fears that he may get employment and she would be at a total loss if he were not around. They have received speech and language therapy for [E] and more is required but she said that, having availed of the service for a specified time, they were required to re-join the queue to obtain further support. She said that [E] has to be washed, dressed and fed and while he is toilet trained, he needs help to take his trousers down and up and also requires help in cleaning himself. He still wears a nappy at bedtime and will not go to bed unless his father stays with him until he falls asleep. He does not like his routine to be disturbed. He likes to play with his iPad or watch television and he has a disco-type light to relax him. The appellant said that if his routine is interrupted, he has to go back to the beginning.

His parents said that [E] cannot be left with anyone to look after him. He is not a very social character and is not socially interactive. He has a friend and he can become obsessed with that individual. As a result, other children do not want to be continually in his company. They said that, generally, he is a lone player. He is particular about his food and it has to be cut up in sections and spoon fed to him. The appellant said that his communication is poor and he cannot tell what is wrong with him.

On behalf of the appellant, their local representative confirmed that the situation was very stressful for the family. He said that while they are hopeful of the success of the various interventions, there is quite a long way to go and their main concern was to provide as best they can and to give their son every opportunity to lead an independent life.

Comments/Conclusions: The Appeals Officer noted that additional evidence had been submitted by the appellant and, in particular, that it was the opinion of the Senior Psychologist that [E] requires full-time care and attention in excess of a child of the same age without the condition. Having carefully considered all the evidence on file and that adduced at oral hearing, he was of the opinion that the appellant had provided evidence that [E] is in need of full-time care and attention as provided for within the legislation.

Decision of the Appeals Officer: The appeal is allowed.

Note on decision reason(s): Domiciliary Care Allowance may be paid where a person is providing care at home for a child who has a severe disability, and requires continuous care which is substantially in excess of that normally required by a child of the same age. The qualifying conditions are outlined in social welfare legislation.

Having examined the evidence available in this case including that presented at oral hearing, I have concluded that [E] has a diagnosis of Autism, it has been established he needs substantial additional care on a continuous basis, as provided for in the legislation. In the circumstances, I decide that the appeal can succeed.