09 – Child’s age: 6 years

2013/9 – Child’s age: 6 years

Diagnosis: Emotional and behavioural problems

Report of oral hearing: The appellant, who was accompanied by her daughter, submitted further reports, as follows:

Occupational Therapist’s report
School reports
HSE assessment report

The appellant stated that she had an older son with Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD), Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) and Dyspraxia and that she had noticed that [J] displayed many of the same characteristics as his older brother, and was interested in the same activities. She said that she had applied to have him assessed, as he is giving them a hard time at home although he appears to be a placid and loving child at school, with no identified problems, apart from slight learning issues. The appellant said that [J] is the youngest of four children, and that he gets on well with his siblings. He is hyperactive, and is constantly fidgeting. He is headstrong and has a temper, if he doesn’t get his own way. He is constantly annoying the family at home, though he does not behave in the same way at school. He has speech and language delays and finds it hard to pronounce some words and as a result, he gets frustrated if he is not understood.

[J] is in first class and doing well at school, despite some areas where he is behind. The appellant said that he has a new teacher this year and she feels he may not be fully aware of his needs. She hoped to meet with him and discuss [J]’s progress. The appellant’s daughter advised that they had applied for a Special Needs Assistant (SNA) for him but had been refused and were allocated some additional resource hours. The appellant described homework as a nightmare, and said it can take up to four hours. [J] refuses to do his homework and he sometimes writes down the wrong homework or finds it hard to concentrate on precise instructions as to what day he should do a particular subject. He is constantly topping his pencil rather than concentrating on homework and always has to be fiddling with something.

The appellant said that [J] mixes well, has one or two friends and tends to mix with younger children. At home, he plays with other children on the estate and is very keen to go out and play after school. He gets fearful of certain sounds, worries slightly about things and keeps coming back into the house to check in. He likes cars, colouring pencils and books.

The appellant said that [J] struggles to communicate sometimes and then overreacts by shouting - and this can happen at any time but always at home. He finds it hard to express himself to the teacher, in group sessions and cannot cope well when some incident happens. She said that he does not know the difference between right and wrong and will not take correction. She states that he is also aggressive and gets frustrated at not being physically able to make himself understood and becomes fretful, has tantrums, becomes out of control, has copious crying sessions and has to be managed out of them. The appellant said that she must be on guard constantly to manage stressful situations so that they do not give rise to incidents. She said that [J] can perform most activities of daily living but is very uncooperative at home. He has difficulty with washing his hair, going into the shower, and with cleaning himself after using the toilet. He is a fussy eater but will eat a proper meal if someone sits with him at the table.

Comments/Conclusions: The Appeals Officer noted that [J] has difficulties in maintaining attention and normal behaviour at home but appeared to have no such difficulties at school, confirmed by reports from his school and the appellant’s oral evidence. She noted that the letter submitted at oral hearing stated that he was a pleasant and kind child at school, with some mild learning issues but no behavioural issues. She noted also that he has some communication difficulties and some learning issues, but nothing which appears significant at this time, though the appellant stated that he seems to be getting worse. She noted that the Occupational Therapist’s report indicated that while he had some issues, he had age- appropriate motor skills.

The Appeals Officer observed that, at age 6 years, he is able to partake in normal activities for a child his age, without significant assistance from his mother on a continuous basis. The Appeals Officer had regard to all the relevant documentary evidence and was satisfied that the oral evidence which the appellant provided was reflective of her circumstances. She accepted that there is a level of care and attention required by the appellant’s son but not such as may be deemed to be substantially in excess of that required by another child of the same age. Accordingly, she concluded that the medical qualifying condition for Domiciliary Care Allowance was not met.

Decision of the Appeals Officer: The appeal is disallowed.

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 while [J] has some behavioural issues it has not been established he needs substantial additional care on a continuous basis, as provided for in the legislation. In the circumstances, I regret that the appeal cannot succeed.