https://www.facebook.com/680446565154183/

Help from mummy and Ruby, London (2026)

28/05/2026

✨ HRM under SMI – Day 20

Using the Decision Makers Guide (DMG) to support your SMI claim

A lot of parents don’t realise:

👉 DWP decision makers use guidance called the DMG when looking at claims.

DMG stands for:

👉 Decision Makers Guide

And it explains:

👉 how DWP should interpret and apply the law.

💡 Why does this matter?

Because sometimes refusal decisions:

❌ misunderstand the criteria
❌ oversimplify needs
❌ focus too heavily on isolated strengths
❌ ignore risk and supervision evidence

Quoting relevant parts of the DMG can help:

👉 support your arguments
👉 explain misunderstandings
👉 show why evidence meets the legal criteria

Especially at:

📝 Mandatory Reconsideration
⚖️ Tribunal stage

🧠 For example, the DMG explains:

👉 severe impairment of intelligence is not based purely on IQ

Instead, decision makers should look at:

👉 “useful intelligence”
👉 understanding
👉 real life functioning

This can be really important for children with:

✔ splinter skills
✔ hyperlexia
✔ isolated academic strengths

👀 The DMG also explains:

👉 continual supervision does NOT mean staring at a child every second.

The important part is:

👉 ongoing supervision
👉 danger awareness
👉 readiness to intervene

This can really help where families feel supervision has been minimised.

💥 Another important area

The DMG discusses:

👉 impulsive
👉 unpredictable
👉 dangerous behaviour

And explains that:

👉 restraint and intervention may be needed to prevent injury, danger or damage.

This is why:

👉 detailed real-life examples matter so much.

⚠️ But this is important

Quoting the DMG alone will NOT win a claim.

You still need:

✔ strong evidence
✔ examples across environments
✔ professional support
✔ evidence matching each criteria point

The DMG simply helps explain:

👉 how the rules should actually be interpreted.

💛 Final takeaway

Sometimes parents know their child meets the criteria…

but struggle to explain it in the “language” DWP use.

The DMG can help bridge that gap.

💬 Had you heard of the Decision Makers Guide before this series?

👉 Next: Final thoughts & biggest lessons from this SMI series

26/05/2026

✨ HRM under SMI – Day 19

More useful case law

A lot of important SMI guidance has been shaped through case law over the years.

Here are some more REAL examples parents may find useful 👇

🧠 1. MP v SSWP [2014] UKUT 426 (AAC)

This case reinforced that:

👉 autism CAN amount to “arrested or incomplete development of the brain”

And confirmed tribunals must look at:

👉 overall functioning
👉 useful intelligence
👉 real life understanding

—not just isolated strengths or diagnosis labels.

💥 2. EC v SSWP [2017] UKUT 391 (AAC)

This is a REALLY important SMI case.

The tribunal criticised evidence being looked at in:

❌ separate compartments

and confirmed all evidence must be considered:

👉 holistically

The case also discussed:

👉 restraint
👉 absconding risk
👉 physical intervention
👉 buggy/harness use
👉 social functioning

Importantly, the judge questioned whether:

👉 a specialist buggy could amount to restraint/intervention.

👀 3. CDLA/2955/2006

This case focused heavily on:

👉 supervision
👉 dangerous behaviour
👉 CCTV monitoring
👉 ongoing behavioural risk

The tribunal accepted evidence showing:

👉 extensive home supervision measures
👉 environmental safety adaptations
👉 constant monitoring for risk

This can be really relevant for families using:

• CCTV
• locks
• alarms
• enclosed sleeping spaces
• extensive safety measures at home.

✋ 4. CDLA/1545/2004

This case summarised important principles around:

👉 severe mental impairment
👉 severe behavioural problems
👉 intelligence impairment

It reinforced how HIGH the SMI threshold actually is and discussed:

👉 severe impairment of intelligence
👉 behavioural severity
👉 social functioning difficulties

This is one reason why:

👉 diagnosis alone is never enough for SMI.

⚠️ Important reminder

Case law can help support:

👉 arguments
👉 interpretation of the rules
👉 appeals and tribunal submissions

But:

👉 case law alone will not win an appeal.

It must still match:

✔ your child’s needs
✔ the legal criteria
✔ and the evidence provided.

💛 Final takeaway

The strongest SMI appeals usually combine:

👉 strong real-life evidence
👉 multiple environments
👉 professional support
👉 and relevant legal principles together.

💬 Have you ever felt your child’s risks or supervision needs were oversimplified in reports?

👉 Next: The DMG explained

25/05/2026

✨ HRM under SMI – Day 18

Useful examples of case law in SMI claims

Last time I explained what case law actually is.

Today I want to share a few REAL examples that have helped shape how SMI claims are understood.

Not to turn parents into lawyers 😅

But to help explain why some refusals are successfully challenged at MR and tribunal.

🧠 1. “Useful intelligence” matters more than isolated skills

One of the most important SMI principles comes from:

👉 R(DLA) 1/00

This case made clear that:

👉 severe impairment of intelligence is NOT based purely on IQ or isolated abilities.

Instead, tribunals should look at:

👉 “useful intelligence”
👉 real life functioning
👉 understanding and applying skills practically

This is really important for children who may:

✔ count
✔ read words
✔ use tablets
✔ repeat language

…but still have very severe overall impairments in understanding and functioning.

👀 2. Continual supervision does NOT mean staring every second

Case law has also clarified that:

👉 “continual supervision” is LESS than continuous observation.

R(A)1/73 confirmed this.

The important part is:

👉 ongoing supervision
👉 danger awareness
👉 readiness to intervene quickly if needed

—not physically staring at a child every second of the day.

✋ 3. Supervision can still count even with short breaks

Another useful principle comes from:

👉 CDLA/468/2006

This recognised that:

👉 a child may still require continual supervision even if left briefly at times.

Because the key issue is whether:

👉 an adult remains attuned and ready to respond to danger quickly.

💥 4. The real issue is risk and unpredictability

Case law has repeatedly reinforced that tribunals should focus on:

👉 impulsivity
👉 unpredictability
👉 real risk of harm
👉 level of intervention needed

—not just whether behaviour “looks severe” to someone observing briefly.

⚠️ Important reminder

Case law can help support arguments.

But:

👉 case law alone will NOT win an appeal.

It must:

✔ apply to your child’s circumstances
✔ match the evidence
✔ support the legal criteria properly

💛 Final takeaway

A lot of SMI appeals are won because tribunals look:

👉 deeper than isolated skills
👉 deeper than diagnosis
👉 deeper than short observations

And instead focus on:

👉 overall functioning in real life.

💬 Have you had a refusal that focused heavily on one isolated skill while ignoring everything else?

👉 Next: More useful case law examples around restraint, supervision and behavioural risk

21/05/2026

✨ HRM under SMI – Day 17

Case law — what is it and why does it matter?

A lot of parents hear the words:

👉 “case law”

and think:

❌ solicitors
❌ complicated legal language
❌ not relevant to them

But actually?

Case law can be incredibly useful in DLA appeals and tribunals.

💡 What is case law?

Case law is:

👉 a previous legal decision made by a judge or tribunal

Usually where the law needed:

👉 clarification
👉 interpretation
👉 or correcting after a wrong decision

⚖️ Why does this matter for DLA?

Because many parts of DLA law are:

👉 not clearly defined

For example:

🧠 what counts as “severe impairment of intelligence”?
👀 what does “watching over whenever awake” actually mean?
✋ what counts as restraint or intervention?
💥 what are “severe behavioural problems”?

This is where case law becomes important.

Because judges have already considered these questions in previous appeals.

💡 So how can case law help your claim?

Case law can help:

👉 explain the law properly
👉 challenge incorrect DWP assumptions
👉 support arguments at MR or tribunal
👉 strengthen professional evidence
👉 show how criteria should actually be interpreted

⚠️ This is important

Case law does NOT automatically mean:

👉 your child will be awarded

And not every case law will apply to every child.

But it CAN help support:

👉 specific arguments within your claim.

💥 For example

Some case laws have clarified things like:

👉 isolated “splinter skills” do not always reflect overall functioning
👉 supervision does not mean staring every second
👉 restraint can look different depending on age and needs
👉 overall useful intelligence matters more than isolated abilities

📝 Case law is often most useful at:

👉 Mandatory Reconsideration
👉 Tribunal stage
👉 responding to refusal reasons

Especially where DWP have:

❌ focused on isolated strengths
❌ misunderstood autism or learning disability
❌ minimised supervision needs
❌ ignored risk and unpredictability

💛 Final takeaway

Case law helps explain:

👉 how the law should actually be understood in real life.

And sometimes…

it can be the thing that shifts an appeal from:

❌ refused
to
✔ awarded

💬 Had you heard of case law before this series?

👉 Next: Day 18 Useful examples of case law in SMI claims

20/05/2026

✨ HRM under SMI – Day 16
Why many SMI claims are refused

Honestly?

A lot of SMI claims fail before they even begin.

Not always because the child doesn’t meet the criteria…

But because parents are not told how STRICT and evidence-heavy these claims actually are.

⚠️ SMI is NOT awarded because a child:

❌ has autism
❌ has ADHD
❌ has no danger awareness
❌ absconds
❌ needs supervision

That alone is NOT enough.

The child must meet:

👉 EVERY single part of the criteria together.

And every point usually needs:

👉 significant evidence
👉 across multiple environments
👉 from multiple professionals

💥 One of the biggest mistakes?

Parents do not follow the flowchart.

Instead they focus heavily on:

👉 supervision
👉 danger
👉 behaviour

Without fully evidencing:

❌ severe impairment of intelligence
❌ severe impairment of social functioning
❌ severe behavioural problems
❌ physical intervention/restraint
❌ continual supervision whenever awake

If ONE part is weak:

👉 the claim will fail completely.

🧠 Another huge issue?

Parents often underestimate how much evidence is actually needed.

SMI claims are not won with:

❌ one diagnosis letter old
❌ one parent statement
❌ “my child is unsafe”

Strong SMI claims are built from:

🏫 school evidence
📝 detailed diaries
🧾 risk assessments
👩‍⚕️ professional reports
🚌 transport evidence
🤝 social care
🌍 community evidence

All showing:

👉 the same severe needs everywhere.

⚠️ Splinter skills are another major reason claims fail

Things like:

👉 counting
👉 reading words
👉 using a tablet
👉 scripting language
👉 choosing between items

can be heavily focused on by DWP if they are not properly explained.

Especially if parents do not explain:

👉 whether those skills are functional
👉 whether understanding is actually present
👉 how much support is still needed

🏫 Positive wording on reports can weaken claims too

This is something many parents completely miss.

Words like:

👉 “making progress”
👉 “happy”
👉 “engages well”
👉 “good communication”
👉 “follows routine”

can seriously damage an SMI claim IF the context is not explained properly.

Because often the report does NOT explain:

👉 developmental level
👉 supervision required
👉 support behind the scenes
👉 risk
👉 unpredictability

💡 Another hard truth?

Parents normalise things.

What feels “normal” to you now…

may actually be:

👉 extreme supervision
👉 continual intervention
👉 severe developmental delay

Because you have lived it every day for years.

💛 Final reminder

If your child genuinely meets ALL parts of the SMI criteria and this has been significantly evidenced properly…

👉 please do not give up after a refusal.

Many genuine SMI cases are only awarded after:

👉 Mandatory Reconsideration
👉 Tribunal
👉 or significant additional evidence

Because this is one of the hardest DLA criteria to prove.

❤️Do you know a family who would benefit from this series please share

💬 Has this series changed your understanding of how strict SMI actually is?

👉 Next: Case laws that may support your SMI claim

19/05/2026

✨ HRM under SMI – Day 15 Recap

This series has covered a LOT…

So here’s a simplified recap of the SMI criteria so far 💛

⚠️ First — this is important

SMI is one of the STRICTEST DLA criteria.

👉 Every part of the criteria must be met together.

And:

👉 evidence needs to come from multiple reports, people and environments.

💡 1. High Rate Care

The child must qualify for:

👉 High Rate Care component

🧠 2. Severe mental impairment

The child’s difficulties must come from:

👉 arrested or incomplete development of the brain

🧠 3. Severe impairment of intelligence

This is NOT just:

❌ autism
❌ speech delay
❌ struggling in school

It means:

👉 significantly reduced overall understanding and functioning

DWP look at:

👉 “useful intelligence”
👉 understanding
👉 ability to apply skills in real life

👥 4. Severe impairment of social functioning

This means:

👉 severe difficulties functioning socially compared to other children of the same age

Usually across:

🏫 school
🏠 home
🌍 community settings

💥 5. Severe behavioural problems

Behaviour must be:

👉 extreme
👉 disruptive
👉 dangerous
👉 impulsive
👉 unpredictable

Not just:

❌ tantrums
❌ emotional distress
❌ difficult behaviour alone

✋ 6. Physical restraint / intervention

Another person needs to:

👉 physically intervene regularly to prevent injury, danger or damage

For example:

• stopping absconding
• preventing injury
• blocking danger
• physically redirecting

👀 7. Present and watching over whenever awake

This means:

👉 continual supervision due to danger and unpredictability

Across:

🏠 home
🏫 school
🌍 community settings
🌙 overnight when awake

significantly beyond what would normally be expected for the child’s age.

📝 Strong SMI claims usually include evidence from:

• parent diaries
• school
• EHCPs
• risk assessments
• professionals
• transport
• social care
• community settings

Showing:

👉 the same risks across multiple environments

💛 Final reminder

Not every autistic child will meet SMI criteria.

But genuinely severe cases deserve to be properly understood and evidenced.

💬 Has this series helped make the SMI criteria clearer?

👉 Next: Why many genuine SMI claims are still refused

15/05/2026

✨ HRM under SMI – Day 14

How to evidence continual supervision properly

A lot of parents say:

👉 “my child needs supervision”

But DWP are looking for evidence that supervision is needed:

👉 continually
👉 across ALL environments
👉 due to real risk and unpredictability

💡 Parent supervision diaries

These are one of the strongest forms of evidence.

Your diary should cover:

🏠 indoors
🌳 outdoors
☀️ daytime
🌙 overnight when awake
🚗 transport
🛒 community settings

Because you need to show:

👉 supervision is needed at ALL times

Not just occasionally.

📝 Don’t just write:

❌ “needs supervision”

Explain:

👉 what risks you are monitoring
👉 what dangers you are preventing
👉 what intervention is needed
👉 what would happen without supervision

⚠️ Age matters too

This is really important.

Young children naturally need supervision.

But as children get older:

👉 most gain increasing independence
👉 danger awareness improves
👉 supervision reduces

For SMI, the supervision needed is usually:

👉 significantly beyond what would normally be expected for that child’s age.

🏫 School evidence

This is really important.

Look at EHCP wording carefully.

Does it mention:

👉 1:1 at all times?
👉 enhanced supervision?
👉 additional support around transitions?
👉 risk management?
👉 supervision during unstructured times?

Think about school trips too.

👉 Does your child require additional adults?
👉 Have you had to attend yourself for supervision?
👉 Have activities been adapted due to safety concerns?

These things matter.

🤝 PA / community support evidence

Does your child have:

👉 a PA?
👉 short breaks support?
👉 community support workers?

If so:

👉 how do they manage in the community?
👉 what supervision is needed?
👉 are risk assessments in place?

This can be really strong evidence.

🧾 Risk assessments

Strong SMI claims often have risk assessments across multiple environments.

For example:

🏫 school
🚌 transport
🏊 activities
🏠 home
🌍 community settings

Especially where they mention:

👉 absconding
👉 climbing
👉 pica
👉 impulsive behaviour
👉 lack of danger awareness
👉 unsafe sensory seeking

⚠️ Pica evidence

If your child has pica:

👉 keep a pica diary

Record:

• mouthing incidents
• unsafe items targeted
• supervision needed
• intervention required

And ask school to explain:

👉 how they keep environments safe
👉 how they reduce access to unsafe items
👉 what supervision is required

💥 Incident evidence matters too

Think about incidents involving:

• touching hot cookers
• unsafe climbing
• absconding
• ingesting unsafe items
• running into roads
• jumping from heights

Evidence could include:

🏥 A&E reports
🚓 police involvement
📄 safeguarding records
🏫 incident reports

💛 Final takeaway

The strongest supervision evidence shows:

👉 supervision is constant
👉 risks exist everywhere
👉 intervention is regularly needed
👉 and the child cannot safely function without oversight

💬 Have you ever realised how much evidence of supervision already exists around your child?

👉 Next: Day 15 recap of the criteria

14/05/2026

✨ I’ve seen clips circulating from a podcast mocking children for not being toilet trained, feeding themselves or managing self-care before school age.

And honestly?

This conversation needs far more understanding and far less judgement.

Because there is a HUGE difference between:

👉 delayed development
and
👉 poor parenting

✨ These photos are years apart.

But some things haven’t changed.

Ruby is still in nappies.
She still can’t feed herself safely.
She cannot use cutlery or drink from an open cup independently.
She still needs full support with basic self-care tasks many people take for granted.

And that does NOT make her less worthy. 💛

Do people really think I would choose that for her?

Do they think I wouldn’t love for my daughter to:

👉 learn independence
👉 understand toileting
👉 dress herself
👉 feed herself safely
👉 manage basic life skills

like so many other children can?

Do people think it’s easy sending your child into school every day worrying:

💔 whether their hygiene needs will actually be prioritised
💔 whether they will be treated with dignity and kindness
💔 whether they are vulnerable because they cannot communicate

And alongside the practical side…

there is also the heartbreak of wondering:

👉 will my child ever understand these things?
👉 will they ever have the capacity to be independent?
👉 what happens when I’m no longer here?
👉 would anyone care for them the same way I do?

Some children:

• are autistic
• have learning disabilities
• have developmental delays
• have sensory difficulties
• have physical disabilities
• have medical conditions affecting feeding or toileting

Some children physically CANNOT do these things independently yet.

Not because parents are lazy.
Not because nobody has tried hard enough.

But because they are disabled.

Most SEND parents are already doing everything they possibly can to help their child progress.

Behind every nappy change, feeding difficulty or self-care struggle is usually:

👉 therapy
👉 repetition
👉 appointments
👉 teaching
👉 exhaustion
👉 and endless advocacy

And yes…

Independence should absolutely be encouraged wherever possible.

But independence looks different for every child.

For some children:

👉 feeding themselves safely
👉 recognising they need the toilet
👉 dressing independently
👉 understanding hygiene routines

may take years longer — or require lifelong support.

Mocking disabled children or their parents has never helped a child progress.

Understanding, support and compassion does.

💛 Before judging a parent or child, remember:

You rarely know what is happening behind closed doors.

13/05/2026

✨ HRM under SMI – Day 13

“Present and watching over whenever awake” — what this actually means

This is one of the strictest parts of the SMI criteria.

And it’s often misunderstood.

💡 What the DMG actually says

DWP are looking at whether a child’s behaviour is so:

👉 impulsive
👉 unpredictable
👉 and dangerous

that another person needs to be:

👉 “present and watching over them whenever they are awake”

⚠️ This is important

The guidance does NOT mean:

❌ staring at your child every second of the day

The DMG makes clear supervision can still allow:

👉 brief interruptions

But overall:

👉 supervision must be continual, ongoing and across all environments.

🧠 What this really means in real life

It means:

👉 always being alert
👉 always anticipating danger
👉 always needing to stay close enough to intervene

Because risk can happen quickly and unpredictably.

And importantly:

👉 this does not just apply at home

It includes:

🏠 home
🏫 school
🛒 shops
🌳 parks
🚗 transport
🏥 appointments
🌙 and during the night when awake

💥 In real life this can look like:

• following your child around constantly
• not being able to leave them safely
• always listening for movement or silence
• staying within arm’s reach in public
• physically positioning yourself near exits or roads
• constantly scanning new places for danger
• checking for unsafe items if your child has pica
• looking for ways your child could escape
• identifying unsafe climbing opportunities
• avoiding non-gated outdoor areas
• sleeping lightly because you remain “on alert”

Not because you are anxious…

👉 but because serious risks are real and can happen suddenly.

⚠️ The key part of this criteria

DWP are looking at:

👉 what would happen if supervision stopped?

Would the child:

• abscond?
• run into danger?
• injure themselves?
• access unsafe items?
• climb unsafely?
• become unsafe very quickly?
• require immediate physical intervention?

L

💡 Another important point

Many parents minimise this because it becomes “normal”.

Things like:

• checking locks repeatedly
• never leaving a room unsupervised
• avoiding certain places entirely
• needing another adult to complete basic tasks
• mentally risk assessing every environment you enter

These are NOT typical levels of supervision.

💥 The focus is not just watching

It is:

👉 unpredictability
👉 danger
👉 and readiness to intervene at all times

💛 Final takeaway

This criteria is not about:

👉 overprotective parenting

It’s about:

👉 the reality that a child cannot safely function without continual supervision and immediate intervention if needed.

💬 Have you ever realised how much of your daily life revolves around staying “on alert”?

👉 Next: How to evidence continual supervision properly

Help from mummy and Ruby

28/05/2026

26/05/2026

25/05/2026

21/05/2026

20/05/2026

19/05/2026

15/05/2026

14/05/2026

13/05/2026

Address

Website

Alerts

Contact The Business

Shortcuts

Share

Category