Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

My question concerns disability services, particularly respite services. There are anomalies in different areas and even within CHOs, which result in discrimination against some children and their families based on where they live. I have been dealing with a number of people in my constituency of Cavan-Monaghan who are trying to secure respite care for their children. One horrendous case involves a family that is going through hell not just because of the child's needs and disabilities and the family's general need for respite care but also because other members of the family are seriously ill and the pressure is crazy. The difficulty is that in Cavan-Monaghan, the HSE has a criteria statement of purpose for respite care that is specific.

A child must have a diagnosis of a moderate or severe intellectual disability to be even considered.

If this child lived in counties Louth, Meath, Sligo or Leitrim, they would have access to respite care, or at least an entitlement to it given there are issues with the provision of the services. For example, in Sligo and Leitrim – this information is contained in correspondence from the HSE in response to parliamentary questions - the eligibility for a child to access respite care is that the child is known to the children's disability network team, CDNT, as six years or older, which is the case across the board, that direct approval has been made by the children's referral committee and that the HSE respite co-ordinator complete a determination of needs assessment. In Louth or Meath, a committee is in place that bases its decision on the following rationale: children who access services in their respective CDNT, children in care of the Child and Family Agency, children who live with families where there are multiple instances of disability, children who present with significant behavioural challenges, which is very important, or children who have a significant physical disability and require a high support level of needs. I am sure the witnesses can see the distinction between those two responses. For Cavan-Monaghan, there is a strict definition of moderate to severe intellectual disability. A child could have multiple reasons for requiring respite that are taken into consideration in the criteria in the two other areas I mention, but in Cavan-Monaghan they are completely overlooked and ignored.

How much longer are we going to stand over a situation where a child I represent is discriminated against simply because they happen not to live in a different county? Will it be ensured that there will be framework for all areas in order that there can be some level of discretion and compassion to address cases such as the one I mentioned?