10 year olds more likely to be on disability benefits than 50 year olds

[AgeingMillennial]

AIBU to think this is absolutely baffling? And at some point we really have to investigate why so many young children are non verbal, have severe emotional regulation problems etc?

Are there stats showing there are more non verbal children than there used to be, as opposed to just more autism and ADHD diagnoses? I would not be surprised if there were; but at the same time I’m conscious that perceptions are likely being influenced by so many special schools having shut down and a flood of disabled kids being placed in mainstream.

Beyond that, I am pretty convinced early overuse of mobile devices is creating ADHD-like symptoms in many children.

Yes, more children with severe autism are being born,

nobody is quite sure why but some ideas have been floated.

an increase in severe autism cannot be put down to diagnostic categories moving as these children would have been diagnosed now or thirty years ago.

I think the lack of clear record keeping isn’t helping. I can’t say for sure but I didn’t even know somebody could be non verbal until about 7/8 years ago… now it seems there’s one or two in every class

I’m just amazed that more than 1 in 10 ten year olds are so disabled they qualify for benefits

Is this known for sure though? In this country no diagnostic distinction is made between severe and less severe autism. So I wonder how records reflect this?

OP, on your point above about there suddenly being nonverbal kids in every classroom, these are kids that would have gone to special schools in the past. So while you wouldn’t have encountered them, it’s possible there would have been just as many.

As a separate point, I’m not sure benefits stats are always a good reflection of real numbers of disabled people, for various reasons.

But if 1 in 30 kids were non verbal in the past I’m sure we would’ve all known about it, special schools or not. Thats a very high number. It’s very worrying how many adults will need 24/7 care in 15 years

Well if DS had been born 50 years ago he wouldn’t have lived to 10 so wouldn’t have been a benefit burden. Thankfully health care has come a long way in the last 50 years.

My immediate thoughts are:

People who didn’t feel they had to claim or just didn’t consider it are more likely to now, due to rising costs. And on a similar note, perhaps older disabled people are more likely to be financially comfortable than parents of a young disabled child, and therefore less likely to claim. Or just as likely to claim but less likely to appeal/go for mandatory reconsideration.

Also, to put it quite bluntly, for genetic life limiting conditions, or severe disabilities that are present from birth, claims will be weighted more towards the younger age as the life expectancy is lower. Plus healthcare improvements mean that some disabilities that would have been a death sentence for a baby or infant a few decades ago can now be medically managed so the child survives.

A lot of special need children wouldn't have turned 1 yo just a few decades ago. You can think twice about that.

Where are you getting 1 in 30 from? Would be interested to see the data source and context

Your post doesn't seem to be about genuine concern for children, otherwise you would have led with a story that doesn't link the disability increase to the actual benefits. This is yet another benefits bashing post to sow seeds of doubt about the validity of ND diagnosis and whether they should be covered by government assistance. I think people shouldn't engage with posts like this.

How many of those children were born premature and wouldn't have survived because of their disability?

Not many only 1.5% of babies are born before 32 weeks

You must have something better to do on a friday evening, why waste it trying bash disabled children?

I’ve noticed it’s common now for a poster to say they have multiple disabled kids, or that even all of their kids are disabled

People claim for anything now, someone I know claims for her daughters ADHD and there's absolutely bloody nothing wrong with her. It doesn't cause them any hassle or money. They've got heaps of money also, mortgage free due to inheritance.

All of this. And in addition, parents may be more likely to claim as the benefits award is evidence that helps unlock additional support. This is why I claim disability benefits for my child - even though they are very clearly physically and intellectually disabled in a way even the greatest disability sceptics couldn’t deny, I have to provide huge amounts of evidence for e.g. nursery/school applications. The benefit award is part of this evidence.

More prem babies exposed to steroids before birth has a link to adhd. Have rates risen in line with that perhaps

Why do you think they’ll need 24/7 care? What are you basing this assumption on?

NB, I hate this discussion as 'kids being on benefits'. Children are not 'on benefits' - their parents receive benefits in order to look after their children.

I think @PinkFrogss' analysis is probably accurate. It's not parents are somehow being 'grasping' or want their kids to be on benefits for life, it's that life is damn expensive and people need every bit of help they can get.

Pretty sure OP is just making it up, Google came up with nothing like they were saying. Hopefully they’ll add the source soon.

Until 1990 my Nana worked in a children’s home that was essentially like a hospital/institution setting for children.

With my DD2 we would likely have been encouraged to send her somewhere like that as a small child due to her fits and blackouts (which we now know are cataplexy). She wouldn’t have been at home, going to school or had parents claiming benefit for her.

And DD3 wouldn’t have survived until 1.

Lower mortality rates, less institutionalised care and more care about children who do not conform to norms add to the increase in numbers.

In hindsight I can see that at least 2 of the 3 naughty boys in my class at school were very obviously ND. It just wasn’t diagnosed and they weren’t dealt with by anything other than punishment back then.

There are no up to date stats. This is what the teachers on here say

1/10th of 10 year olds in receipt of DLA is massive though but I wonder how much that hides a spectrum of need. there are children who will be profoundly disabled and are unlikely to live beyond primary age - we have a little girl in this situation in our primary and the impact on her parents has been massive. Arguably families like hers should be getting more than they do as they are reliant on charitable funding for equipment and therapy. I’m sure at the other end there are kids who appear well functioning but require additional support. I can’t believe it’s easy to get the PIP secured.