We have just seen a client whose 16 month old son suffers from the above. She applied for DLA care for him, as he has obvious care needs substantially over & above those of a normal child - was turned down (without the benefit of any medical reports whatsoever) on the grounds that "his condition should improve considerably" ?

Ignoring the amazing logic and thought that must have been applied to the decision making process, does anyone have experience of applying for DLA in a similar situation, bearing in mind the age of the child.

Unbelievable Mike. Scouring the Disability Handbook for any possible reason for the decision (chapter 40) all I could see was "The diagnosis cannot be made with confidence in the first few months for most children. There are some children who appear to have cerebral palsy at 8-12 months but later show no physical disability." but I just cannot see how you can pull that out to a 16 month old who presumably has a firm diagnosis?

Rather hearteningly it says on the subject of further evidence: "Parents of children with cerebral palsies are usually greatly involved in the programmes of effective family support and should thus be able to provide the great majority of information required in determining care and mobility needs.", which is very un Disability Handbook in my experience. Maybe my second edition is out of date and they've changed it to say something horrid.

I know you don't want a moan about decision making in reply to your post, but a decision like this is so awful. For the one parent who sought your help I bet three will have walked away at probably the most vulnerable point in their lives when they were entitled to help from the government which could really assist the proper development of their child, possibly give them some breaks from caring, and SAVE the country thousands of pounds in the extra costs of the produce of a child being brought up under-resourced in such difficult circumstances. I do hope that you easily win and pursue them for compensation for maladministration, as well as raising the subject generally as a complaint about woeful decision making and ask for better training. These complaints can work, and if they needed a clearer example they'd be hard pushed to find one.

With that quote from the DH I'd be tempted to appeal straight away and just haul the mother in front of a tribunal and ask what is it you have to do to get justice in this country??? But I know I'd get further medical evidence first even though you shouldn't need it.

It would be nice to think that this was an isolated case ....suffice to say that it restores my belief in Wembley.

As an aside, they actually turned done a client for AA last year who was registered (for good reason) blind - said she did'nt need help in the home, and did'nt qualify for mobility as over 65 - seems they had a problem with the award being made in connection with the bodily function of seeing, not walking - actually had to take it to Tribunal, where the hearing lasted all of four minutes with predictable results.

In this case, the child has 5 different professionals he sees on a regular basis - Paediatrician, speech therapist, occupational therapist, physiotherapist, a child development health visitor and a normal health visitor - a firm diagnosis was made five months ago - there's more than enough reports - the client completed the original claim form, and did'nt think for a minute that they might turn it down, and therefore did'nt send any of them in.


"The only difference between a tax man and a taxidermist
is that the taxidermist leaves the skin".

-- Mark Twain