10 – Child’s age: 6 years

2013/10 – Child’s age: 6 years

Diagnosis: Developmental Delay (subsequently, Autistic Spectrum Disorder)

Report of oral hearing: The appellant was accompanied by her partner. She advised that she does not work outside the home and that her partner is in full-time employment. She said that [K], who is the youngest of three children, had been diagnosed initially with Developmental Delay but more recently had been given a diagnosis of Autistic Spectrum Disorder. A discussion ensued where the following points were discussed/established:

The Public Health Nurse first noticed a delay in his speech and language when [K] was approximately 2 years of age.
He was referred to speech and language therapy and diagnosed with developmental delay in 2012.
He has been referred to the Autism team in the area but the appellant has no idea how long it may be before he is seen.
There is a Special Needs Assistant (SNA) in his class (who is not there for [K] but tries to keep an eye on him).
They have applied for an SNA and the doctors have indicated that he needs one.
He is very often oblivious to things going on around him and this can be dangerous where traffic is concerned, for example, or he will leave the front door open and walk out onto road without looking or realising there may be danger.
Everything connected with [K] takes longer than it should.
He cannot dress himself properly, takes much longer to eat than his siblings and will only eat certain foods (mainly chicken and fish).
He is in the lowest percentile in terms of school assessments and his homework has to be done is small tranches and takes a long time – he has no concentration and has to be reminded about everything.
He has obsessions, particularly about the moon.
He talks at people and does not converse.
His disability is becoming more obvious and difficult as he gets older.
He gets very anxious about everything and has to be reassured constantly.
Routine is paramount and some routines cannot be changed under any circumstances.
He has no friends and seems to opt out of everything, both at home and at school.

Comments/Conclusions: The Appeals Officer noted that the appellant and her partner came across as genuine and gave their evidence in a credible manner. He considered that it had been clearly established that all aspects of their lives are affected by their son’s condition and that the level of care accumulates in that regard. This combined with the evidence that [K]’s sense of danger is non-existent, led him to conclude that the criteria for qualification for Domiciliary Care Allowance were met.

Decision of the Appeals Officer: The appeal is allowed.