I have an oral hearing coming up regarding DLA for a child with ADHD & specifically the LMC of DLA.

One of the issues relates to the age of children & supervision.

The tribunal said that the at the child's age (9) he would always be supervised in unfamiliar areas - the implication being he could not qualify for the LMC on these grounds.

I am arguing that it is the quality as well as the existance of supervision which is relevant, however, I would also like to tackle the issue of what mobility can be assumed of a child at particular ages. It is may contention that a child may well be expected to have some limited mobility (going his/her own way at a funfair, limited walking around a pedestrianised city centre, etc.) but have not been able to put my hands on any recommendations from qualified people to this effect. Can anyone suggest any sites or other sources which would include details of a child's likely mobility at particular ages.

Mike

PS the other issue is one of how the guidance in R(DLA) 4/01 that to be able to “take advantage” implies an ability to reach a destination, should be determined in the case of a child with ADHD who might not go to an appropriate destination (school/local shop) without guidance but may be able to get to a new/preferred destination.

Hi Mike try this commissioners decision CDLA 4806/2002 i have pasted the Derbyshire Welfare rights summary of this below. if you have trouble finding the decision please let me know and i can email a copy to you.

CDLA 4806 2002

Notes
This is regarding mobility issues for a child with ADHD Attention Deficit Disorder.

In cases dealing with claimants who are under the age of 16”, the regulations clearly state ‘substantially in excess’ and a comparison has to be made to a child of the same age of normal ability. The type of supervision the claimant requires whilst out of doors and as to the difficulties which would be posed if he came across an unfamiliar route would need to be clarified.

It is not disputed that the claimant is able to walk and that he suffers from attention deficit disorder. The first question which needs to be answered is therefore whether the result of his attention deficit disorder is that, at the material time, he could not take advantage of the faculty of walking out of doors without guidance or supervision from another person most of the time. When the question is first posed, it is not necessary to introduce into it any consideration of the familiarity or unfamiliarity of a hypothetical route. That becomes an issue if a claimant asserting a need for guidance or supervision is met with the answer that he manages to get around perfectly well on his own. If the claimant can respond that he can only manage when the route is familiar, then his ability to get round on his own is to be disregarded. As a matter of fact, he will satisfy the statutory test by his need for guidance or supervision on unfamiliar routes, but that does not mean that it is part of the statutory test that the route should be unfamiliar.

The distinction can be significant for a child claimant. In the present case, I understand that the mother is saying that the claimant cannot walk out of doors without guidance or supervision whether the route is familiar or unfamiliar, because he does not recognise the risks. He needs guidance or supervision in any case. It follows that when the comparison is made with a child of his age of normal physical and mental health, the question is not whether such a child would need guidance and supervision on unfamiliar routes, but whether he or she would need guidance and supervision on all routes. for example, whether a child in normal physical and mental health would be able to walk alone from the claimant’s home to the claimant’s school, once the route had become familiar.

The findings of fact will be required as to:
(1) What level of supervision or guidance the claimant required at the material time when taking advantage of the faculty of walking out of doors; and
(2) Whether the supervision or guidance required was substantially more than that which would be required by a child of his age in normal physical and mental health.
While the journey to school may be relevant, it is not the only journey that should be considered. The claimant’s ability to use other possible routes such as a route to a friend or relative living nearby or to the local shops or recreation ground should also be considered as part of the whole picture.

Derbyshire Welfare Rights

Hi

referring to LRM there are two grounds which we argue on behalf of our ADHD clients - depending on the severity of the symptoms in any particualr case...

1. Normally, these children have little or no sense of danger, of the sort that you would expect an average 9 year old to have aquired: therefore in familiar or unfamiliar surroundings he/she could very well be at risk to themselves -

2. If the child concerned has a tendancy to verbally and/or physically abuse other children - (and it's not unknown for them to be extremely abusive towards adults as well) then they may well require supervision to ensure that they aren't a risk to themselves or others.

Some of my clients cannot for example allow the child out of their sight for fear of them setting about other children even when just playing outdoors locally.

There is sometimes a view amongst DM's and Tribunals that the older the child gets the more he should be able to control his behaviour -
that does not necessarily follow, as they have little control over their emotions, hence the problem in the first place.

You could also look at CDLA/1721/2004, which is a Tribunal of Comms decision.