The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by a woman challenging the refusal of Domiciliary Care Allowance for the care of her teenage daughter. It upheld the High Court’s decision that the Appeals Officer’s November 2021 refusal was not shown to be wrong in law.
The appeal concerned the Appeals Officer’s decision not to revise two earlier decisions disallowing the mother’s claim. The allowance requires a child under 16 to have a severe disability requiring continual or continuous care and attention substantially in excess of that normally needed by a child of the same age.
The daughter was diagnosed with developmental coordination difficulties, also known as dyspraxia, in 2019 and autism spectrum disorder the following year. The mother’s application was refused in April 2020. An Appeals Officer disallowed her appeal in September 2020, and declined to revise that decision after an oral hearing in April 2021. A further request for revision was refused in November 2021.
In that November decision, the Appeals Officer considered the evidence under headings including mobility, personal care, toileting, feeding, education, sleep, communication, social skills, behaviour, safety and sensory issues. The officer recognised that the daughter needed support and that meltdowns and sensory issues placed significant demands on the mother’s parenting resources. The officer nevertheless concluded that the daughter’s overall care needs were not substantially above those normally required by a child of the same age.
The mother argued in the High Court that the decision gave inadequate reasons, was irrational or unreasonable, and applied the wrong statutory test. The High Court rejected those grounds. On appeal, she also challenged the trial judge’s treatment of a Medical Assessor’s Report.
The Court of Appeal held that the Appeals Officer’s decision set out sufficient reasons, including an assessment of the evidence across the relevant areas of care. It said the officer was not required to explain in detail why particular submissions were preferred or to assign weights to each item of evidence.
The court also found that the Appeals Officer could consider the evidence as a whole, including the changing detail in submissions during the application process. It concluded that the refusal was open to the officer on the evidence and that the correct statutory test had been applied: the child’s overall care must be continual or continuous and substantially greater than that normally required by a child of the same age.
The court rejected the argument that the High Court judge had treated the Medical Assessor’s Report as evidence considered by the Appeals Officer. It dismissed the appeal. Costs issues, including the respondents’ cross-appeal concerning the High Court costs order, were left for a later hearing date.