Sheikh-Abdullahi and Secretary, Department of Family & Community Services [1999] AATA 769 (15 October 1999)

Last Updated: 18 October 1999

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [1999] AATA 769

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )

) No V1999/78

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION )

Re HODON SHEIKH-ABDULLAHI

Applicant

And SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY & COMMUNITY SERVICES

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Adjunct Professor L.S. Rodopoulos, Member

Date 15 October 1999

Place Melbourne

Decision The decisions under review are affirmed. Ms Sheikh-Abdullahi is not qualified for Child Disability Allowance under s.954 of the Social Security Act 1991 ("the Act") in respect of both of her children, Mohamed and Nuria, as neither child is disabled according to the requirements of s.952(b)(ii) of the Act.

(Sgd.) L.S. Rodopoulos

Member

CATCHWORDS

SOCIAL SECURITY - Child Disability Allowance - two asthmatic children - whether children require substantially more care and attention than child without disability - decision affirmed

Social Security Act 1991 - ss952, 954

Re Yousef and Director-General of Social Services (AAT 610, 21 December 1981)

Secretary, Department of Social Security and Wahide Ghazzaoui [1998] AATA 209

Re Secretary, Department of Social Security and Bosworth (1989) 18 ALD 373. Commissioner for Superannuation v Scott (1987) 13 FCR 404; 6 AAR 143

Re Thies and Department of Aviation (1986) 9 ALD 454 at 461-463

Re Secretary, Department of Social Security and Carter (1994) 32 ALD 766

Re Sachs and Director-General of Social Security (1984) 6 ALN N22

Re Atkinson and Secretary, Department of Social Security (AAT 11386, 13 November 1996)

REASONS FOR DECISION

15 October 1999 Adjunct Professor L.S. Rodopoulos, Member

1. On 25 January 1999, Ms Hodon Sheikh-Abdullahi sought review of two decisions of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal ("the SSAT") of 11 December 1998. The first decision is the cancellation of payment of Child Disability Allowance ("CDA") for her son, Mohamed. The second decision is refusal of payment of CDA for her daughter, Nuria. The original decision regarding Mohamed was made by a Centrelink delegate of the Secretary to the Department of Family and Community Services ("the Department") on 11 June 1998 (T6, pp35-36) and, subsequently, affirmed by the SSAT. The original decision regarding Nuria was made on 11 June 1998 (T19, pp82-83) and also affirmed by the SSAT on 11 December 1998. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal ("the AAT") heard this application on 7 September 1999 and, for the reasons that follow, agreed with the decisions of the SSAT. This means that Ms Sheikh-Abdullahi's applications to have the decisions changed have been unsuccessful.

2. At the hearing Ms Sheikh-Abdullahi, accompanied by a family friend Mr Mohamud Mohamed, represented herself. Mr Pat Carson of the Centrelink Administrative Law Section represented the Department. In addition to the documents lodged pursuant to s37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 ("the T documents") and numbered T1-T22, the Tribunal received:

* a substantial bundle of documents from Ms Sheikh-Abdullahi (Exhibit A1);

* a three page Statement to the AAT dated 7 September 1999 (Exhibit A2);

* a Student report regarding Mohamed Sheikh (Exhibit A3);

* an undated note from Drs Rawet and Rozario regarding medication (Exhibit A4);

* a copy of a prescription for Mohamed dated 20 August 1999, under the name of a Consultant Paediatrician, Dr Ian E. Humphery (Exhibit A5);

* copies of letters from Dr Stuart Anderson, Consultant Paediatrician, Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne, dated 16 March 1999, regarding Mohamed and Nuria (Exhibit A6);

* referral note regarding outpatient attendances of Mohamed at the Paediatric Consulting Centre, Royal Children's Hospital, dated 1 February 1999 (Exhibit A7); and

* a duplicate note regarding Nuria (Exhibit A8).

Exhibit A1 contains a number of documents relating to procedural aspects of the lodgment of the applications with the AAT and request for legal aid to Victorian Legal Aid, through Mr Lindsay Tanner, MP. After the hearing the documents were organised into chronological order and given individual Exhibit numbers by the Tribunal as follows:

1.1 30.3.89 JAMHUURIYADDA DIMUQ. SOOMAALIYA-WASAARADDA CAAFIMAADKA Letter certifying that Ms Sheikh-Abdullahi worked as a doctor in the paediatrics ward in Benadir Hospital.

1.2 AHU/SPM/257/89 JAMHUURIYADDA DIMUQ. SOOMAALIYA-WASAARADDA CAAFIMAADKA Letter from Director, RHU Mogadishu, regarding Dr Hodon Ali Sh. Abdlaahi's contribution to the Refugee Health Unit.

1.3 13.9.90 Letter from Australian Medical Council regarding application of Dr H. Sheik Abdullahi for assessment of her medical qualifications.

1.4 3.3.89 Letter to Ms Sheikh-Abdullahi from Barry Booth, First Secretary of Immigration, Australian High Commission, approving refugee resettlement for her and other family members.

1.5 21.2.94 Personal reference from Leon Steinkiler, B.Pharm., M.P.S., regarding Ms Sheikh-Abdullahi.

1.6 Undated. Semester 2 Primary report regarding Nuria Sheikh, The Islamic School of Victoria (Werribee College).

1.7 December 1998. Student Report for Mohamed Sheikh from Kensington Primary School.

1.8 30.3.99 Letter to Victoria Legal Aid supporting Application for Legal Aid made by Ms Sheikh-Abdullahi

1.9 1.4.99 With Compliments card to Ms Sheikh-Abdullahi from North Melbourne Legal Service.

1.1.1 16.4.99 Allergy Clinical Immunology Skin tests for Nuria sheikh Mohamed.

1.1.2 Allergy clinical Immunology Skin tests for Mohamed Sheikh Mohamed.

1.1.3 16.5.99 Report to Dr Rawet from Dr Mimi Tang regarding Mohamed.

1.1.4 16.5.99 Report to Dr Rawet from Dr Mimi Tang regarding Nuria.

1.1.5 28.4.99 Letter to Mr Lindsay Tanner MP from Victoria Legal Aid concerning application for legal aid and request for medical specialist report regarding Ms Sheikh-Abdullahi's application to the AAT.

1.1.6 9.5.99 Swim and Survival School Program, Laverton Fitness, regarding Mohamed.

1.1.7 21.5.99 Letter to Victoria Legal Aid from Ms Sheikh-Abdullahi regarding legal assistance.

1.1.8 21.5.99 List of Children's Medical & Related Expenses since June 1990 prepared by Ms Sheikh-Abdullahi.

1.1.9 4.6.99 Letter to Legal Aid Victoria from the Department of Respiratory Medicine, Specialist Paediatric Respiratory Clinic, regarding Mohamed and Nuria, signed by Dr R.J. Massie, Respiratory Physician.

1.2.1 6.7.99 Letter from Ms Hodon Sheikh-Abdullahi to Deputy Registrar requesting adjournment of hearing set down for 7.7.99. Repeat copy. Also AAT letters regarding conference arrangements.

1.2.2 9.7.99 Letter to Ms Hodon Sheikh-Abdullahi from Centrelink regarding Parenting Payment.

1.2.3 26.7.99 Letter to Legal Aid Victoria from Ms Hodon Sheikh-Abdullahi requesting reconsideration not to grant legal assistance.

1.2.4 13.8.99 Letter to Ms Hodon Sheikh-Abdullahi regarding her enquiries from the Asthma Foundation of Victoria.

1.2.5 20.8.99 Allergy Clinical Immunology Skin Tests for Mohamed Sheikh.

1.2.6 20.8.99 Asthma Action Plan for Young People regarding Mohamed Sheikh.

1.2.7 24.8.99 Letter from Mr Lindsay Tanner, MP, to Victoria Legal Aid requesting reconsideration of an extension of time to appeal refusal of legal aid.

1.2.8 2.9.99 Letter prepared by Miss Pam Dimopoulos, Primary Co-ordinator, regarding school absences of Mohamed and Nuria from Islamic Schools of Victoria (Werribee College).

1.2.9 7.9.99 Statement to the AAT prepared by Ms Hodon Sheikh-Abdullahi.

1.3.1 29.10.99 Royal Children's Hospital, Allergy Clinic appointment card for Nuria and Mohamed.

1.3.2 Undated documents produced by Dr Mimi Tang, Consultant Paediatric Allergist/Immunologist, Royal Children's Hospital, on House Dust Mites and Allergic Disease and Eczema Management Plan. Duplicate copy (also copy of business card of Dr Mimi L. Tang).

1.3.3 Undated note from Drs Rawet and Rozario regarding medications prescribed for Nuria and Mohamed. Already taken in as Exhibit A4.

1.3.4 Ameritech Library Services extract - undated.

3. Ms Hodon Sheikh-Abdullahi is a doctor (Exs. 1.1, 1.2, 1.3). She arrived with her former husband and children in Australia from Somalia in 1989 through the refugee resettlement program (Ex. 1.4). She is now a lone parent. Apart from Mohamed and Nuria she has two other children. To qualify for the CDA the following legislative provisions must be satisfied:

"952. Subject to section 953, a young person is a disabled child if:

(a) the young person has a physical, intellectual or psychiatric disability; and

(b) because of that disability:

(i) the young person needs care and attention from another person on a daily basis; and

(ii) the care and attention needed by the young person is substantially more than that needed by a young person of the same age who does not have a physical, intellectual or psychiatric disability; and

(c) the young person is likely to need that care and attention permanently or for an extended period."

"954(1) A person is qualified for a child disability allowance for a young person if:

(a) the young person is a CDA child of the person; and

(b) the young person receives care and attention on a daily basis from:

(i) if a person is a member of a couple - the person or the person's partner; or

(ii) if the person is not a member of a couple - the person;

in a private home that is the residence of the person and the young person."

4. It is not in dispute that both Mohamed and Nuria suffer from asthma and allergies and that they regularly attend for medical appointments regarding their conditions, thereby satisfying s952(a) of the Act. Neither is it in dispute that both require regular medication and prophylactic care to minimize exposure to asthma and allergy producing triggers, and that they have been absent from school for periods of time due to their condition, thereby satisfying s952(b)(i) of the Act. It is not in dispute that Ms Sheikh-Abdullahi satisfies s.954(1)(a)(b)(i) of the Act and that both children fulfil the requirement of being a young person as defined in s5, namely that they are "(a) a person who has not turned 16".

5. The issue before the Tribunal is whether either Mohamed and Nuria, or both, satisfy s952(b)(ii): specifically whether they need "substantially more" care and attention than a young person of the same age who does not have a physical, intellectual or psychiatric disability.

6. Although not discussed at the hearing, the Tribunal is aware of the amendments that came into effect on 1 July 1998 regarding eligibility for CDA, and that a child disability assessment tool has been devised to objectively test eligibility pursuant to s952. The Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill dated 2 October 1997 described the new approach to CDA and stated that only new claimants after 1 July 1998 will be subject to the new qualification regime.

"CARE AND ATTENTION" OF MOHAMED

7. Mohamed, born on 2 October 1991, was in receipt of CDA from 1 January 1992 until payment was discontinued, after medical review, on 11 June 1998. On the basis of the evidence before it the Tribunal finds that he experiences attacks of severe asthma, food and skin allergies (T5,p19) which requires his mother's care. He experiences asthma symptoms at regular interval and wakes with symptoms during the night and in the morning more than once a week. (T5,p26). He uses a ventolin puffer under supervision and with reassurance of his mother (T5,p22). The nebuliser is used every four hours when he is experiencing an asthma attack (T5,p22). His pattern of asthma is described as being seasonal and constant in nature. That is, his symptoms are experienced all year round, but worse in certain seasons (T5,p26). It is claimed that he suffers a serious attack approximately 37 times each year (Ex. A2). When he experiences an attack he takes reliever medication about every four hours and returns to his usual medication in less than a week (T5,p26). He was hospitalized for one day in January 1998. He was absent from school for 36 days in 1998 (Ex. A1.7) due, it is claimed, to asthma. On medical advice he is taken to swimming, by his mother, for one hour once a week (T5,p23). His bathing and showering needs; transportation; and nutritional needs are closely monitored and supervised by Ms Sheikh-Abdullahi to minimize the potential for an allergic and/or asthmatic reaction (T5,p24).

8. Dr Rawet the treating doctor is signatory to Mohamed's CDA review form, dated 15 April 1998 (T5, pp15-34). Part D of CDA Review Form at T5 (pp24-25) seeks to ascertain what extra care is provided to Mohamed by his mother on a typical day. Nil Responses are noted against toileting; hand and body movements; vision/hearing; assistance with learning; concentration and memory; behaviour; social skills; fitting and care aids/prosthetics. Extra care is noted as being in relation to bathing and showering; dressing and undressing when he has an attack; and special dietary preparations. Occasional assistance is given with feeding. According to Ms Sheik-Abdullahi, Mohamed requires monitoring and supervision at night because of breathing problems, and there is a need to calm his hyperactivity due to the effects of medication. He is transported to the Royal Children's Hospital by taxi when he has an attack.

9. In her Statement To The Administrative Appeals Tribunal dated 7 September 1999 (Ex. 1.2.9), Ms Sheikh-Abdullahi's details the household tasks that she undertakes daily in caring for Mohamed, claiming 55 hours per week. Other timed activities include the administering of medication, approximately six times each day, for each child totalling 7 hours per week. A substantial part of this document details the "over and above my normal household tasks" required because of her children's special needs. These are also briefly outlined in the Review form at Section 28, which asks "is there anything else you would like to tell us about your child's disability or the extra care and attention you give him or her. She states " I spend lot [sic] of time cleaning the house to vacuuming, dusting the whole house, washing clothes. I also massage his body to ease breathing" (T5,p28).

"CARE AND ATTENTION" OF NURIA

10. A claim for CDA was made for Nuria, born 8 November 1989, on 9 April 1998. Following certification of a Commonwealth Medical Officer, the claim was refused entitlement on 11 June 1998. Unlike Mohamed, Nuria displays behavioural difficulties in relation to her mother's efforts to prevent and treat her asthma and allergies. Dr. Rawet has prepared the medical report dated 5 March 1998. Under the section regarding the frequency of the asthma episode he notes that her asthma attacks occur "monthly" and are moderate to severe with a duration of one to two weeks with a good response to medication. Systemic corticosteroids were not necessary to abort acute attacks and had he treated Nuria 4-5 times during the preceding 12 months. She is hospitalized one to two times yearly. Dr. Rawet indicates that Nuria requires "substantially more extra care " in that she requires "Supervision and dispensing and administering medication. Assessing asthma. Frequent medical appointments". His opinion is that this extra care will be required for more that 12 months and that Nuria self administers inhalers "under supervision." In the same application form Ms Sheikh-Abdullahi claims that she spends extra time for food preparation; she calls a taxi for transportation because of Nuria's disability and claims three hours of washing clothes; cleaning the house etc. to guard against dust mites. She supervises the administration of medication and of the air cleaner day and night. (T14,p65). A letter from the Primary Co-ordinator of the Islamic Schools of Victoria, dated 2 September 1999, states that Nuria has been absent from school for 23 days, up to the end of June 1999, due to health reasons.

11. The Tribunal found Ms Sheikh-Abdullahi to be a reliable witness and does not dispute her claims regarding the "care and attention" that she gives Mohamed and Nuria. That both children benefit from her domestic cleaning and related activities is confirmed in a letter from Dr Robyn L. Hore, a paediatrician with the Royal Children's Hospital in a letter addressed to the Department of Human Services, Division of Housing (T4,p14) which states, inter alia,

"I am writing this letter in support of the family's request for their housing to take into consideration elimination of exacerbating factors of asthma as both Mohamed and his sister have this problem. He is sensitive to dust and airborne pollution and hence long pile carpets and heaters which have ducted airborne heated air are likely to exacerbate his asthma."

12. The Tribunal finds that Ms Sheikh-Abdullahi carries out the daily activities as claimed in Exs. A2 and 1.2.9, and that they are conducive to the enhanced well-being of her four children, and particularly Mohamed and Nuria.

SUBMISSIONS AND CONSIDERATION

13. The issue before this Tribunal is whether the preventative measures undertaken by Ms Sheikh-Abdullahi constitute substantially more "care and attention" "than that needed by a young person of the same age who does not have a physical, intellectual or psychiatric disability" as defined under the Act.

14. The Tribunal discussed "substantially more" in Re Secretary, Department of Social Security and Bosworth (1989) 18 ALD 373. The word "substantial" is a word susceptible, depending on the context, to several different connotations: see the discussion and authorities referred to by the Federal Court (Fisher, Spender and Pincus JJ) in Commissioner for Superannuation v Scott (1987) 13 FCR 404; 6 AAR 143 and by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in Re: Thies and Department of Aviation (1986) 9 ALD 454 at 461-463. Here, it is used in a comparative sense "substantially more than" which we take to mean "considerably" or "significantly" more than.

15. Uses of the word "substantially" in a different context have been examined by the Federal Court (Fisher, Spender and Pincus JJ) in Commissioner for Superannuation v Scott (1987) 71 ALR 408 at 412-413:

"This court has on a number of occasions considered the adjective "substantial" and, even where it stands alone uninfluenced by proximity to the word "wholly", has adopted a meaning which accords wither the submission of the Commissioner. I refer in particular to Tillmanns Butcheries Pty Ltd v Australasian Meat Industry Employees' Union (1980) (sic) 27 ALR 367. At 382 Deane J. said:

'The word "substantial" is not only susceptible of ambiguity; it is a word calculated to conceal a lack of precision. In the phrase "substantial loss or damage", it can, in an appropriate context, mean real or of substance as distinct from ephemeral or nominal. It can also mean large, weighty or big. It can be used in a relative sense or can indicate an absolute significance, quantity or size. The difficulties and uncertainties which the use of the word is liable to cause are well illustrated by the guidance given by Viscount Simon in Palser v Grinling ([1948] AC 291 at 317) where, after holding that, in the context there under consideration, the meaning of the word was equivalent to "considerable, solid or big", he said: "Applying the word in this sense, it must be left to the discretion of the judge of fact to decide as best he can according to the circumstances of each case...'."

16. In the circumstances of this case, there appears to be some dispute as to whether the "care and attention" Ms Sheikh-Abdullahi provides is necessary, let alone whether it constitutes substantially more "care and attention" as provided for under the Act.

17. Ms Sheikh-Abdullahi relied on the medical reports of Dr. Mimi Tang, Consultant Paediatric Allergist and Immunologist with the Royal Children's Hospital to substantiate the necessity for the "care and attention" she provides. The evidence and arguments put to the Tribunal are well documented in her letter for Application to Legal Aid Victoria of 26 July 1999. (Exhibit 1.2.3) which is now summarized. Legal aid was refused on the basis of the opinion of Dr Massie of the Department of Respiratory Medicine at the Royal Children's Hospital. Ms Sheik-Abdullahi contends that the Tribunal should rely on the evidence of her self as a mother and a doctor. Dr Tang has three years experience overseas as a specialist in Paediatric medicine. It should also rely on the medical opinion of Dr. Tang, whom she describes as having an excellent reputation, being well experienced and respected in her field. "She is also senior lecturer in the Paediatrics Department of the department at Melbourne University." She has undertaken all the necessary tests on the children and for these reasons Ms Abdullahi regards these findings to be more reliable than those of Dr. Massie (Ex. 1.1.9) who is, in her opinion " a student , not a specialist". She argues that Dr. Massie contradicts himself as to whether or not Nuria is allergic to dust mites and queries, if she is not, why Nuria has been prescribed "dangerous" anti-allergy drugs. She challenges his understanding that she dry dusts, indeed is insulted that he should consider that she is not aware that wet dusting is required. Further his advice about the cleaning required for the large volume spacer contradicts that given to her by staff at the Royal Children's Hospital. She fully understands that "Allersearch" cotton bed line is preferable to cheaper cotton ones , but cannot afford to buy these. She argues that

"The doctor's job is to diagnose and prescribe and treat. He does not not [sic] know all of what I do to care for the children at home. Even doctors and scientists do not really know how these medical problems and allergies come about. We can only improve the children's home comforts and lifestyle, and give them what relief we can, and hope for the best. This is what I do, and I work very hard to do so as to prevent any distress I can for my children".

She ends her letter with concerns regarding her financial difficulties. Concern is also noted in Ex. A2 where she comments that the SSAT "dismissed the time and expense I spend to keep them well".

18. Mr Carson relied on the "objective medical evidence" of Drs Rawet and Bisas (T5, p32, and T14 & T16) and on the decision of Secretary, Department of Social Security and Wahide Ghazzaoui [1998] AATA 209 in which one medical witness, Dr John Morton from the Prince of Wales Children's Hospital Section of Thoracic Respiratory Medicine and Cystic Fibrosis Centre, wrote in relation to that matter:

"I am frequently asked by parents of children with asthma to complete medical application forms for Commonwealth Assistance for these children. In my opinion assistance is usually not appropriate on medical grounds unless the asthma is of extreme severity. This would include only 2% of the total asthma population.

In the rest of the children with chronic and persistent asthma, the treatment of this disease is now so effective, that it should not place very significant burden on the family in terms of cost or time. ..."

19. Mr Carson also drew the Tribunal's attention to the matter of Re Sachs and Director-General of Social Security (1984) 6 ALN N22 where that Tribunal discussed the issue of "objective medical evidence".

"... the test of need is essentially objective; there surely can have been no legislative intention that the subjective view of a worried mother caring and attending, but compassionately, needlessly or even mistakenly, could qualify for this particular allowance. The general thrust of the Act is to require objective testing of personal needs and there is no reason to think that this allowance is any exception."

20. The Tribunal respects Ms Sheikh-Abdullahi's expertise as a doctor, and finds that her daily cleaning and care routines are conducive to minimising the onset of symptoms and attacks of asthma and allergic reactions in both her children. The Tribunal finds that her responses to her children's needs are not the "subjective view of a worried mother" as described above, and that they are necessary preventative measures. However, the Tribunal questions whether it was the intention of the Act to evaluate "substantially more" in terms of the "extra time taken" to carry out the cleaning and food preparation functions as described by Ms Sheikh-Abdullahi.

21. In Re Yousef and Director-General of Social Services (AAT 610, 21 December 1981) where the child was a chronic asthmatic, the Tribunal pointed to three classes of activity that constituted "care and attention". These were

- treatment of an attack of asthma;

- watchfulness for an onset of asthma;

* attention to feeding and management generally to avert normally harmless frustration and upsets which in the child in question were conducive to the onset of an attack.

22. The weight of Ms Sheikh-Abdullahi's submissions to the Tribunal reflect the latter two classes of activity. The Tribunal finds that during episodic attacks of asthma and allergic reactions both Mohamed and Nuria need extra care and attention. However, the nature of both asthma and allergic reactions are episodic, and there a periods where symptoms are not evident. At these times Ms Sheikh-Abdullahi is watchful and takes a variety of preventative measures to avert the onset of symptoms and attack.

23. At the hearing Ms Sheikh-Abdullahi was given a copy of a two page extract from Section [952.09] Part 2.19 (s952) of Sutherland, P. & Anforth, A. Annotation to the Social Security Act 1991. 4th Edn., Welfare Rights and Legal Centre: The Federation Press. This contained summaries of a number of cases coming before this Tribunal entailing claims for CDA for asthma. In terms of the concept of "substantially more", in Re Secretary, Department of Social Security and Carter (1994) 32 ALD 766, the Tribunal granted the CDA where, quantitatively, the time taken to take "extra care" of two disabled children, between one to two hours a day for each child, was considered to meet the "substantially more" test. In Re Atkinson and Secretary, Department of Social Security (AAT 11386, 13 November 1996) the Tribunal accepted that the applicant spent an average of two hours per day on extra care and attention for her thirteen year old daughter who suffered from intestinal lymphangiectasia, which required special dietary arrangements.

24. The Tribunal recognises that both asthma and allergic reactions can be life threatening situations at the worst and a constant anxiety for all concerned during asymptomatic periods where preventative measures are advisable . However the Tribunal does not consider that "functionally" the abilities of either Mohamed and Nuria are impacted on significantly in the manner in which this Part D (T5, pp22&23) of the form assumes. By way of comparison, the child with the conditions cited in Part C of this form as "always needing substantial extra care", such as Down Syndrome; Cystic Fibrosis; Neuromuscular condition (T5,pp20&21) have associated, permanent and deteriorating/degenerative functional disabilities. Asthma is not listed as one such condition. There may be exceptional situations and this why there is provision under the Act to look at the circumstances of each case. In doing so , both in relation to Mohamed and Nuria the Tribunal cannot find "objectively" that either child requires the manner of "substantial extra care" as required for a child identified in Part C to overcome a deteriorating/degenerative functional disability.

25. Further, the Tribunal notes that Ms Sheikh-Abdullahi is a lone parent with responsibility for four young children. Overall, the demands on her time as mother and housekeeper are unremitting. Whilst she will continue to maintain the level of "care and attention" described, the evidence is such as not to suggest that her children's asthma is of the "extreme severity" described in the extract from Re Ghazzaoui at paragraph 15 as to place a very significant burden on her in terms of time. Dr Rawet describes Mohamed's asthma in terms of his experiencing "persistent/chronic symptoms" (T5, p32) and the severity of Nuria's episodic asthma attacks as being "moderate to severe" (T14, p69). That her children's medical needs place a financial burden on her, in terms of medication and other related, preventative measures, appears to be another central concern of Ms Sheikh-Abdullahi and is not disputed.

26. For the reasons given, the Tribunal will affirm the decisions under review. Ms Sheikh-Abdullahi is not qualified for Child Disability Allowance under s.954 of the Act in respect of both of her children, Mohamed and Nuria, as neither child is disabled according to the requirements of s.952(b)(ii) of the Act.

I certify that the 26 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Adjunct Professor L.S. Rodopoulos, Member

Signed: Judith Holt, Associate

Date of Hearing 7 September 1999

Date of Decision 15 October 1999

Applicant Self-represented

Respondent Mr P. Carson, Centrelink