Spanish court grants father reduced hours to care for autistic son in landmark ruling
Judges find ‘Grade III’ dependency justifies employment benefits, marking a major victory for families of children with severe behavioral and eating disorders
The High Court of Justice of the Canary Islands (TSJC) has ratified a father's right to reduced working hours to take care of his son who has autism. Despite the initial rejection of the mutual insurance company and the social court, the TSJC considers it proven that the child needs constant care, even if that care is given at home and not at a hospital.
According to the ruling, the 12-year-old boy suffers from autism spectrum disorder, moderate language delay, an eating disorder and a severe behavioural disorder. "He is in a situation of great dependency, grade III, the highest level in our legislation. He is under continuous treatment by the mental health unit, the clinical psychology unit and the paediatric unit of the Dr José Molina Orosa hospital. He is unable to take care of himself. He has severe difficulties in leaving the house and carrying out activities with people outside his immediate family," the court ruling states.
According to the TSJC, the boy is extremely selective with his food, sometimes to the extent that he chooses to eat only one type of food for periods of time. "He has progressively reduced the activities in which he participates to the point of not being able to function normally, even limiting the activities he can share with his own sister," the ruling says.
The TSJC has concluded that the fact that the child has not required prolonged hospitalisation "does not mean that his situation is less serious or that his care needs are less".
The TSJC has concluded that the fact that the child has not required prolonged hospitalisation "does not mean that his situation is less serious or that his care needs are less". "On the contrary, autistic spectrum pathologies, with the severity that they present, demand constant attention in the family environment, which is the most appropriate therapeutic environment for their treatment," the ruling states.
The High Court states that denying the benefit "would amount to establishing an unjustified discrimination between children with illnesses that typically require hospitalisation and those whose pathologies, being equally serious and requiring the same dedication from their parents, are preferably treated on an outpatient or home basis".
