You are here: Home >> Case Studies >> Family >> Carers 

Carers Allowance Case 4

Question At Issue:

Whether the appellant (the child’s minder) satisfied the conditions for receipt of payment.

Background:

The appellant’s claim to a Carer’s Allowance was rejected on grounds that she was not the primary care giver and was not providing full-time care and attention for a child with a severe disability. The child’s parents were both in full-time employment and the appellant had provided care primarily while they were at work. The child’s mother was in receipt of a Domiciliary Care Allowance from the Health Board.

Oral Hearing:

The appellant was accompanied at the oral hearing by a representative from the local Citizens Information Centre (CIC).

The Social Welfare Inspector attended at the request of the Appeals Officer.
The Social Welfare Inspector indicated that he had interviewed the child’s mother some four months earlier. She advised him that the appellant was at that stage caring for the child at home, whereas the child had originally been cared for in the appellant’s home.

The appellant said that she had cared for the child from nine o’clock in the morning until six o’clock approximately in the evening on weekdays and sometimes on Saturdays also. In reply to questions put by the Appeals Officer, the appellant indicated that if the parents were away for a day or two, she would keep the child in her care overnight. She stated that even when the child’s mother was on leave from work, she still provided assistance in caring for the child.

The CIC representative referred to a statement in the information booklet provided by the Department of Social and Family Affairs in relation to the Carer’s Allowance (SW41), indicating that where a full-rate Domiciliary Care Allowance was in payment, a Carer’s Allowance was also payable. He argued that payment of a Domiciliary Care Allowance to the child’s mother in this case did not preclude payment of a Carer’s Allowance to the appellant. He contended that the appellant provided care for forty-seven and a half hours each week, pointing out that the Department’s guidelines indicate that eight hours per day may be deemed to be full-time care. He argued also that the appellant was not employed, stating that she was paid €70 per week to cover the expenses associated with bringing the child to school and to physiotherapy in her own car. The appellant confirmed that this was the sum that had always been paid, even when she travelled 30 miles approximately per day in order to provide care in the child’s own home. She added that she and the child’s parent were not relatives.

Consideration of the Appeals Officer:

The Appeals Officer noted that the question of payment to the appellant was somewhat unusual in that it was contended that she was not employed and that the sum of €70 per week was intended to cover the cost of travel. He noted that this payment appeared to have stayed the same, irrespective of whether the child was brought to the appellant’s home or the appellant travelled to the child’s home.

The Appeals Officer considered that full-time care and attention means precisely that, in other words that the carer must be available full-time as and when required over a 24-hour period. He concluded that the appellant in this case was not in a position to provide this level of care, given that she was providing care only while the child’s parents were at work. He considered that the fact that some additional assistance might have been given at other times did not materially alter this position. Noting that the person being cared for was a minor, he considered that the appellant did not stand in loco parentis and that in her role as carer, the appellant did not supplant the role of the child’s parents. He concluded that the child’s parents were in fact the primary carers of the child at all times, with the appellant supplying limited care and attention only for the duration of the mother’s absence on a working day. In the circumstances, he was satisfied that the appellant was not entitled to payment of Carer’s Allowance as she was not providing full-time care and attention and was in effect engaged to look after the child when the parents were at work.

Outcome:

Appeal disallowed.

End of Document