A MOTHER whose teenage son suffers from behavioural disorders has brought a legal challenge to a ministerial decision refusing her a carer’s allowance.
Fiona Mitchell is the primary carer of her son Jason (16) who has attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) and obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD).
Ms Mitchell, Moatview Avenue, Coolock, Dublin, had received the domiciliary care allowance paid to parents whose children have severe disabilities requiring continuous care.
That payment stopped when her son turned 16, after which Ms Mitchell applied for and was assessed for the carer’s allowance. A medical report outlining her son’s condition was also furnished.
Last January the Department of Social Protection’s carer allowance section determined she was not entitled to the allowance as her son was not so disabled he required full-time care.
Ms Mitchell then sought a review of that determination, but was informed last March the original decision stood. She has challenged the refusal of the allowance in judicial proceedings.
In an affidavit the court was told the refusal has placed a significant burden on the family, yet Ms Mitchell could not seek employment as her son required full-time care. Derek Shortall, for Ms Mitchell, argued she was “clearly entitled” to the carer’s allowance, and the Minister’s refusal went against all the medical evidence tendered on her behalf.
He said a doctor had described the teenager’s condition as being severe and of indefinite duration, and had said the boy could not function without his mother’s continued care. It was thought the application was refused because the boy’s illnesses were mental rather than physical in nature.
Leave to bring the challenge was granted on an ex-parte (one side only) basis by Mr Justice Michael Peart, who returned the matter to June.
Ms Mitchell contends the Minister failed to provide adequate reasons for the refusal of the allowance, and had acted in breach of natural and constitutional justice. The Minister erred in law and the refusal was unreasonable, irrational and contrary to all the evidence, it is claimed.