Child DLA claim and frequency of supervision

‘Continual’ is in the legislation—the caselaw I suspect you are thinking of was actually earlier—R (A) 1/73 which established the ‘continual’ was a lesser test than ‘continuous’  it can be found here: https://www.rightsnet.org.uk/pdfs/R_A_1_73.pdf.  The question you need to address yourself to is whether the ‘spasmodic’ pattern identified in your case is compatible with the test identified in R (A) 1/73:  ‘It might indeed be helpful to ask also whether without substantial danger the disabled person could be by himself in a house at any rate for periods long enough to make any supervision that there was not continual.’

I’m not aware of any new decisions that challenge the spasmodicity specifically, but you do have some leeway as continual is taken to mean something less than continuous - if there are periods where supervision would be required, if not for the fact that the person was strapped down, for instance.
A child with epileptic fits might be able to take the school bus alone if s/he’s accompanied to and from the bus, and can be trusted to stay seated during the journey.

If s/he has a variable condition, and you can predict when supervision is needed I doubt it qualifies. If the variability is unpredictable, and there is risk involved, you might be able to argue that the supervision needs to be continual.

The case you need is Moran v SSWP ( reported as an appendix to R(A)1/88). Giving the lead Judgement Nicolls LJ held:

In my view, the natural meaning of the word “supervision” in its context in section 35(1) is not as restricted as that adopted by the commissioners in the underlined words in paragraph 9 of their decision R(A) 1/83. In my view,  depending on the circumstances a person standing by to intervene in the event of an epileptic attack may, for that reason alone, be exercising supervision. It is a question of fact and degree in each case.

Not quite the same context, but you could argue by analogy with the case before Judge Hemmingway in AB v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (ESA) [2016] UKUT 0096 (AAC).that supervision can be provided by the driver of the school bus., 

Judge Hemmingway held in AB at [12];

12. I think the answer lies, then, in looking at the situation from the perspective of the relevant claimant taking into account the particular mental health problems which are said to create the difficulties in getting about. If a claimant suffers from anxiety such that he would not be able to undertake the journey on foot but would be sufficiently reassured by the mere presence of someone else in a vehicle with him, then such a taxi journey would be “accompanied” because, even if the claimant and the taxi driver did not interact by way of discourse, the presence of the taxi driver would be a significant contributory factor to that claimant’s ability to make that journey. If a claimant would otherwise get lost, the taxi journey is an accompanied one because the taxi driver is acting as the claimant’s navigator and, again, making a significant contribution to the ability of the claimant to make the journey. If a claimant cannot face crowds in open spaces then the taxi driver is ensuring he is not put into a situation where he has to do so and, therefore, once again, is playing a significant role in the completion of the journey. Put another way, if a claimant can only undertake a journey to an unfamiliar place by taxi because of a requirement of undertaking the journey in the presence of another person or because the assistance of that other person is required, then that journey is, for the purposes of the relevant descriptor, an accompanied one.