Case Studies » Child Benefit » Child Benefit - Case from 2017 Annual Report (ref: 2017/04)

Background: Prior to her son’s 16th birthday, the Department advised the appellant

that while payment of Child Benefit ceases at age 16 years, it may be extended to age 18 years where a child is in full-time education or is ‘physically or mentally disabled’. In order that payment would continue, she was asked to supply certification in respect of her son. In response, she stated that he had mental health issues, and she submitted a National Educational Psychological Service (NEPS) report. She also provided details of correspondence in which a Psychologist had outlined the difficulties he was experiencing, and had made a number of referrals for him. This evidence was referred to the Chief Medical Advisor of the Department, with a request for an opinion as to whether he might be held to meet the definition provided for in the governing legislation. The Medical Assessor indicated that he considered that the medical evidence was not approved, and the appellant was asked if she wished to provide additional medical evidence. In response, she submitted an assessment completed by the Child Adolescent and Mental Health Services (CAMHS), which outlined issues raised during the assessment, and a plan to provide support for the child and his parents. Ultimately, the claim was disallowed on grounds that the medical evidence was not sufficient to establish a basis for extended payment of Child Benefit.

In an appeal against that decision, the appellant stated that her son continued to suffer mental health issues and depression; he did the Leaving Cert Applied (LCA) because he could not be around large numbers of people and there had been six pupils in the LCA class, and he was not doing a Post Leaving Cert (PLC) course or other training because he was still not stable and not yet ready to interact with people. She referred to the medical evidence provided, and submitted that payment of Child Benefit until his 18th birthday would help her to help him.

Consideration: Social welfare legislation provides for the extended payment of Child Benefit, between 16 and 18 years of age, where a child is in full-time education or is, by reason of physical or mental infirmity, incapable of self-support and likely to remain so for a prolonged period. Accordingly, the question to be determined was whether the appellant’s son could be regarded as incapable of self-support ‘by reason of physical or mental infirmity’, and likely to remain so for a prolonged period.

The Appeals Officer noted the details of the medical evidence submitted and the appellant’s assertion that her son continued to experience depression and mental health issues, and that he was not attending a PLC or other course, having completed the LCA, as he felt  unable to interact with people. In the circumstances, she concluded that the evidence established that he met the definition of a qualified child provided for in the legislation governing extended entitlement to Child Benefit.

Outcome: Appeal allowed.