Parenting and assistance/supervision reasonably required

I have a client with Mild Learning Disability and Schizophrenia (the latter is controlled by medication). She is currently on MRC/LRM and this award is coming up for renewal.

I think that she has a good case for LRM/LRC - her Learning Disability is such that she may be vulnerable to exploitation when out in unfamilar areas and she probably needs enough assistance with communication to get LRC.

Client is otherwise independent with her daily tasks. Her mental illness is stable and she does not need supervision. I’m looking to see if there is any scope to try and keep the MRC. One aspect of life that client has struggled severely with is parenting - she has had 3 children put up for adoption. Client has been assessed as being unable to learn the necessary parenting skills and/or identify the children’s needs. She apparently struggled to bond emotionally with the babies. Client’s communication difficulties and Learning Disability made attempts to assist her in placements very difficult.

One argument I had thought of making was to argue along Fairey lines that once somebody has made the choice to have a child, raising that child is part of a normal and ordinary life and any assistance with bodily functions (including thinking) connected with this should count for DLA. My instinct suggests that this argument does not have much chance but if anyone has any case-law or experience that either confirms this (or ideally tells me that my instinct is wrong!) that would be very helpful.

The other argument I was thinking of trying was to argue that whilst client is able to carry out her basic routines (get up, wash, eat, dress, medication) independently and unprompted, her difficulties with all other activities are sufficient to constitute frequent attention and merit MRC. Have people had success with similar clients? I am expecting her DLA renewal form to be pretty much blank apart from the LRM pages and the page dealing with communication.

Any thoughts welcome!

Caring for a child (or adult) would not be attention in connection with your clients bodily functions. Attention requires that your client ‘reasonably requires’ ‘hands on’ assistance from another person to care for herself.

It may be possible to argue that she requires continual supervision in order to avoid substantial danger to others (the children) but you would need to demonstrate that that danger arose ‘as a result’ of her physical or mental disability (her cognative / communication difficulties?). A lack of parenting skills or the ability to aquire them is arguably to remote / vague. In practice this may be very difficult to argue (and the need would cease to exist when she no longer has care of the child(ren)).

CDLA/16129/96 concerned attention in connection with caring for a baby for a claimant who was blind (someone acting as claimants eyes while she attended to the baby) but arguably its scope and application would not assist your client.

How old are the children? I have had success using CDLA/16129/96 for a claimant who had learning difficulties (and was considered as on the borderline for being considered to have a learning disability) but this was where the claimant had just had the child and there was a large degree of social services intervention going on. The award was based on her inability to look after the child safely and the help and support she needed to perform these activities. However, the award was limited to a couple of years on the basis she was improving her abilities and I suspect (although it was not mentioned in the decision) the child’s young age had a lot to do with it. There was massive resistance (seen through her questioning) by the carer member that required interuption by the adult social worker and an understaning judge.

I have successfully argued that attention from another person to enable the disabled person to care for their child counts. This was for a client with fibromyalgia and used the following;

CDLA/4352/1999 concerned a young woman who had difficulties with her mobility. The Commissioner accepted that the assistance she needed with her movement amounted to attention with her bodily functions. The Commissioner stated ‘I accept that the attention given to the claimant to enable her to undertake the full range of child care was of an intimate, personal nature and was always given in her presence. Such attention included lifting the baby onto her lap so that she could feed him; lifting the children in and out of the bath so that she could wash them; changing nappies; dressing and undressing the children; general supervision, especially with her baby son when crawling and eventually walking.’

Thanks for the feedback all, all very useful. Quite encouraging in some ways although I think the fact that the children have already been taken into care may make the argument a step too far (I’m not sure if I made this clear enough in the original post?).

Having spoken to one professional who has been involved with the lady for some time, her mental health is actually far less stable than the medical evidence I’d initially seen and so I’m hoping that we should be able to get MRC along those lines.