22 – Child’s age: 15 years

2013/22 – Child’s age: 15 years

Diagnosis: Developmental Co-ordination Disorder (DCD)/Dyspraxia, Epilepsy

Background: The appellant’s son, [W], is 15 years old. He has been prescribed Epilim for his Epilepsy as well as Risperdal and Melatonin. In completing the ability/disability profile, his GP assessed the extent to which his condition affects him as follows:

Mental Health/Behaviour: Severe
Learning/Intelligence: Moderate
Consciousness/Seizures: Moderate
Balance/Co-ordination: Moderate
Manual Dexterity: Moderate
Lifting/Carrying: Moderate

Report of oral hearing: The appellant referred to her son’s diagnosis, stating that in addition to Dyspraxia, Epilepsy (Complex Partial Seizures), DCD, ADHD, and a Social Communication Disorder, he had been recently diagnosed as having Autism Spectrum Disorder. She spoke about her son’s height and weight, and said as he gets older he is proving more difficult to cope with. She made particular reference to the following points:

[W] is in mainstream school but his hours have been cut to 9.30 a.m. to lunchtime as he was unable to cope with a full school day. Despite this, she is regularly called to collect him and take him home as he is not coping.
He managed better in primary school as he had one teacher and one classroom, where as now he has to be brought to different rooms and has different teachers, and he is finding it difficult to cope.
He has 16 hours resource teaching per week and there is a possibility of referring him to a special school in September and arranging for him sit for the Applied Leaving Certificate as he is just not coping.
He gets a lot of one to one supervision in school.
The appellant accompanies him to school and hands him into the care of a Special Needs Assistant. If she leaves him to his own devices, he will get lost and he has done so.
He has a younger sibling who is far more advanced than he is. He has no idea of personal hygiene and is still unable to dress himself properly without assistance. He is unable to do buttons and cannot tie laces.
He is very inflexible and has to follow a routine. He has no concept of delay or deferring anything until tomorrow, everything has to happen now.
The appellant still has to read him a bedtime story to try and calm him and settle him for sleep.
He is prone to seizures, which he cannot recall, and at times these can be explosive and destructive.
He cannot be left out on his own. He has no concept of danger and no awareness of appropriate behaviour towards others. He is inclined to say and do the wrong thing especially when it comes to dealing with girls and women. He has no concept of innuendo and he does not understand facial gestures.
He has attended a Psychologist and the local CAMHS but despite this, he only received a diagnosis in the past couple of years.
He lives in a fantasy world, pretending he has lots of friends, when in fact he has none.

The appellant said she is very worried for her son in school as he is the butt of teasing and goading by other children which he doesn’t understand and this regularly causes him to lash out. She said he had also threatened self-harm and that she had been called to the school more than once because of this. In conclusion she said he is emotionally dependent on her which is not good for a 15 year old boy.

Comments/Conclusions: Having considered the evidence in this case, including that adduced at the oral hearing, the Appeals Officer concluded that the appellant’s son met the criteria for Domiciliary Care Allowance. In reaching this conclusion she noted that his school hours had been reduced and that the appellant has to be on stand-by to collect him in case he cannot cope; that, at age 15, is unable to dress himself fully or look after his personal hygiene without supervision; that he is on medication as detailed; that he leads an isolated existence as he is unable to relate to people; that he is not safe to be left out alone as he can engage in inappropriate behaviour or get violent, and that he is subject to regular seizures and may become violent.

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 examined the evidence carefully in this case, including that presented at oral hearing, I have concluded that, in respect of [W], who has been certified as having Dyspraxia/Epilepsy/DCD/ ADHD/Social Communication Disorder and Autism Spectrum Disorder, it has been established he needs substantial additional care on a continuous basis, as provided for in the qualifying conditions of the legislation. On that basis, the appeal is allowed in this case.