18 – Child’s age: 11 years

2013/18 – Child’s age: 11 years

Diagnosis: Asperger’s Syndrome, Dyslexia, Dyspraxia, ADD, secondary ADHD, Dyscalculia

Report of oral hearing: The appellant advised that her son, [S] is the middle child in the family. She said that he has an older brother who also has a diagnosis of Asperger’s Syndrome but that he is calmer and she has not made a claim for DCA for him. She went on to say that problems first arose at school, when he was about 7 years old. His teacher suggested an assessment as she felt he was not doing as well as he should be. The appellant took him to an Educational Psychologist who suggested that he might have Asperger’s Syndrome. He was assessed subsequently by a Consultant Child and Adolescent Psychiatrist who made the diagnosis.

A discussion ensued where the following points were made:

[S] is a very anxious child who suffers ‘night terrors’ and still wets the bed
He is afraid of going upstairs on his own and is anxious all the time
He was being bullied at school but that appears to have abated
While he has one or two boys who play with him in the school yard, neither he nor his brother are ever invited to other houses
He has 5 resource hours and there is a SNA in the class but not exclusively for him
He is obsessed with World War 2 history
He does not take part in sports, except for swimming
He gets regular meltdowns – generally at least one a week and he can throw things (he has broken the TV screen with a remote)
He attends an Occupational Therapist and the appellant is trying to get him to see a Psychiatrist/Psychologist

Comments/Conclusions: The Appeals Officer noted that the appellant has another son who also has Asperger’s Syndrome. He noted that [S] has multiple difficulties with Dyslexia, Dyspraxia and secondary ADHD, to add to the diagnosis of Asperger’s Syndrome and that he appears to have particular difficulties with anxiety as well as social difficulties and violent outbursts during fairly regular ‘meltdowns’. He noted also that he continued to have bedwetting issues. He was persuaded by the range of difficulties that continual or continuous care substantially in excess of that relating to a child without a disability was required.

Decision of the Appeals Officer: The appeal is allowed.