Hello there I am the adoption WRO for Nottinghamshire County Council. I have been working with families trying to claim DLA for children who have often had very chaotic early life experiences and who may or may not have been diagnosed with attatchment issues.Many of the children will have a history of abuse and neglect which has had long term effects on behaviour and development thus substantially increasings their care needs.Lots of medical and phsychological work in this area but I have had limited sucess with DLA applications and decisions continue to be arbitory at best and just plain crazy on more exasperating days!What do DM's read when looking at the claim forms and attached evidence??!!

Is anybody else experiencing the same frustrations in relation to claims for either adopted or fostered children? Any top tips on enabling DM'S to accept there may be issues for children as a result of their abuse and/or neglect? Not found their decison makers guide much use as it is still using terminology that is most definately un - PC.Am thinking about the Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board as a possible route to inform DM's. Any help would be great.

A recent Tribunal of Commissioners' decision may be helpful (there follows a shameless cut'n'paste from the rightsnet summary/news story on the decision):

A Tribunal of Commissioners has issued their decision in CDLA/1721/2004 - a Suffolk County Council Financial Inclusion and Advice Service case, that was represented at the commissioners by the Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) - that relates to the need for a medical diagnosis to determine severe disability for the purposes of Sections 72 and 73(1)(d) of the Social Security and Contributions and Benefits Act 1992.

In their decision, the Tribunal of Commissioners reject the previously held view, taken for example in R(A)2/92, that a definite diagnosis or recognised medical condition is necessary to 'count' as disabled. Instead, they adapt the World Health Organisation definition of 'disability' to mean 'any restriction or lack of ability to perform an activity in the manner or within the range considered normal for a human being'. Accordingly, they conclude that the tests in Sections 72 and 73(1)(d) of a person being 'so severely disabled that' they require attention or supervision, or have mobility difficulties, cannot be equated with 'has such a serious medical condition that'.

The Tribunal of Commissioners also hold that behaviour, in cases of behavioural disorders, although not being of itself a disability, may be a manifestation of a disability. On this basis, the correct approach in R(A)2/92 should have been to ask whether it was in the claimant's power to avoid behaving as they did, rather than to have looked for a specific diagnosis of a recognised mental disorder. The severity of any disability should then be tested, by asking, for example, whether a person requires attention for a significant portion of the day.

Thanks for that Martin I read this with interest a few weeks ago and found that while it did mention the attatchment disorder the focus seemed to be on the learning difficulty and additionally the child in this decision was statmented which DM's always seem to like in the " tick box - let's award benefit" kind of way.The not having a diagnosis is a great advantage if the DM then goes on to understand the behaviour and considers the implications in relation to extra needs. This as oppossed to the "awkward or naughty" child that has been talked about in decisions I've had back! Am I an old sceptic?