Richard Boyd Barrett challenges inhuman treatment of children with disabilities and their families as government tightens the austerity screw on Domiciliary Care allowance
Highlights case of 9 year old with severe autism denied Domiciliary Care Allowance
Speaking during statements on disability in the Dáil today, Richard Boyd Barrett TD challenged the government to match words with deeds in terms of providing the necessary funding and resources to provide the support for disability services they aspire to.
The People Before Profit/ULA TD, pointed out that despite the Programme for Government including a commitment to Vision for Change, the recommendations still have not been resourced or implemented. Every aspect of provision for people with disabilities is lacking.
Deputy Boyd Barrett particularly singled out issues surrounding the Domiciliary Care Allowance for particular criticism and high-lighted the case of John Curley and his son Harry as an example.
John’s son Harry aged 9, was diagnosed with an Autism Spectrum Disorder last August. His application for the DCA was refused in October. After a review he has been refused again despite Psychiatric and GP assessments that say Harry needs “care and/or supervision substantially in excess of another child of the same age.”
In his statement Richard Boyd Barrett TD said, “This government gives lip service to caring about the most vulnerable but whether it is special needs provision, respite care, mental health, speech and language therapy or any aspect of disability there are gaping holes in delivery of supports.
John Curley from Ballybrack’s son needs constant care and attention by his parents. His mother has had to take time off work and is suffering from depression as a result. Harry needs help eating, dressing, can only be collected or delivered to school by either one of his parents.
How can this child not be in need of care and attention substantially in excess of another 9 year old? How is it that Medical Assessors in the Department of Social Protection does not think he needs extra care while the Department of Education clearly think he does as he has recently been given a place in a special school for children with similar diagnoses?
This is just one example, but my office has received report after report of cuts to this allowance. It is hard not to think that there has been a particular instruction to the Department to tighten up on this allowance. This is just another example of the austerity being meted out the most vulnerable.”
John Curley, Harry’s father added: “€309.50 a month may not be much to the Minister, on her big salary, but I can tell you it means a huge amount to Harry. Harry is not able to go to play football or go to the local swimming pool. What he does like is to go to a play centre in Kildare that caters specifically to children with autism. This centre costs €60 every time. If we had €309.50 a month we would be able to go every week.
Harry can’t wear ordinary socks with seams and we have to buy special ones that cost £15 sterling plus p&p. There are so many extra costs involved with a child with special needs, this allowance would be a huge help. We are really hoping that in the up coming appeal we will be granted it”
Notes
Domiciliary Care Allowance: What is it?
Domiciliary Care Allowance is a monthly payment (€309.50) to the carer of a child with a disability so severe that the child requires care and attention and/or supervision substantially in excess of another child of the same age. This care and attention must be provided to allow the child to deal with the activities of daily living. The child must be likely to require this level of care and attention for at least 12 months.
The Domiciliary Care Allowance scheme was administered by the Health Service Executive before it was transferred to the Department of Social Protection in 2009.
Problems:
All seem to have started when it moved to the DSP. Previously Area Medical Officers would adjudicate and decide (a bit like CWO’s and Medical Cards) AMO’s would meet the child.
Now it has moved to the DSP it has been “centralised” and the decisions are made by medical assessors who have never met the child.
Numerous reports to our office over the recent months of people not being granted this allowance or on review, the allowance being taken away.
Reports also from the Psychiatric Profession of further information being required even when the Psychiatrist details that the child needs “care and/or supervision substantially in excess of another child of the same age.”
How is it that Medical Assessors who have never met a particular child will say that this is not the case when the GP/Psychiatrist who have assessed the child say it is?
The sticking point seems to be the word “substantially”. It is a “how long is a piece of string” argument. The process is being dragged out for months. Is this just a money saving exercise? Does the Minister have any idea what this means for people?