Cl is widow with sole responsibiliy for child age 9 with cystic fybrosis, Cl has tribunal for her own DLA as recently had extensive surgery for cancer herself. I know I can include she needs assistance to take part in outdoor activities with her child to lead a normal social life, but can any other part of his care be included as hers also. Would it be a 'parents need' to give care to disabled child or am I looking for something not there. Child has MRC and cl carer.
Carole.

The problem with these types of cases is often that it is only for relatively young children (up to five) that a parent's need to give care to a child will count as a care need - the general view in commissioner's decisions being that the older a child gets, the less that it is a requirement that the parent (rather than someone else) give care. Whilst's the child's disability gets around this problem to an extent, all of the cases that I've argued succesfully have had some develpmental aspect to them - e.g. being able to argue that it is important to the bonding process that mother bathes or feeds baby, so help lifting baby into bath so that mother can then bathe him, lifting child into high chair so that mother can then feed him etc.

So yes, whilst you certainly can "double count", you'll need to show why it is a reasonable requirement that the mother - as opposed to some other individual - give the child's care.

Unfortunately, her attention requirements that arise out of the care she gives to her child cannot be counted if the child already gets the care component of DLA for the period that the attention is given (Miller v Chief Adjudication Officer CA - R(A) 4/94).

But didn't Miller involve disabled adult partners? And the "double-counting" come about because the female claimant stated she had night-time needs in order to attend to her husband's night-time needs?

It was CDLA/5216/98 that said Miller automatically applied to cases of a disabled parent caring for a disabled child, but I'm not sure that the link is automatic -

- a child qualifies for DLA when their needs are substantially in excess of those of a "normal" child - i.e. ordinary, everyday needs do not qualify and do not attract an allowance.

- but a disabled parent could quite reasonably require attention to attend to their child's "ordinary" care needs, needs that do not qualify that child for DLA and for which no payment is made - i.e. there would be no element of double counting.

"- but a disabled parent could quite reasonably require attention to attend to their child's "ordinary" care needs, needs that do not qualify that child for DLA and for which no payment is made - i.e. there would be no element of double counting".

Yes, your point is well made and I'll concede it absolutely.

Mon 27-Apr-09 09:19 AM by Ruth_T

To endorse what pastcaring2 has said in the final paragraph, and at the risk of teaching everyone's grandmother to suck eggs, the correct approach is to go back to first principles and look at the statutory wording. SSCBA 1992 s 72(1) provides for DLA care component to be awarded when the claimant is so severely disabled ... that they require attention from another person in connection with their bodily functions.

Hence a deaf mother requires attention in connection with the bodily function of hearing, so that she can respond to a baby's cries. A mother with a muscle-wasting disease, could require attention in connection with the bodily function of moving her arms, so that she can lift and carry her child, or give the child a bath.

Or to put it another way, if the help is reasonably needed to enable the disabled parent to care herself for the child (whether or not that child is also disabled), that can be "bodily functions". Somebody else actually doing the child care instead of the disabled parent doing it isn't.

Thank you all for a very interesting discussion.
Thought you would like an update. We gained MRC/HRM at tribunal. And the reason was, given the circumstances, quite obscure. I visited the cl at home the night before the hearing and saw how much the son actually did for the mother! That proved more indicative of her care needs and recognised at tribunal.