You are here: Home >> Case Studies >> Family >> Child Benefit

Child Benefit Case 3

Question At Issue:

Whether the appellant may be paid Child Benefit in respect of his cousin who is under the care of his local Health Service Executive.

Background:

The appellant claimed Child Benefit in respect of his cousin, who was 16 years of age and came to live in Ireland in 2001. He was under the care of the Health Services Executive and living in accommodation provided by the Executive. As the appellant was not resident with him, the Deciding Officer concluded that the appellant could not be regarded as head of the household, for Child Benefit purposes, so that he was not entitled to payment.

Oral Hearing:

The appellant attended alone. He reported that he had lived in the same residential centre as his cousin when he first came to Ireland and that he had been paid Child Benefit in his own right while he lived there. He submitted that he had previously claimed Child Benefit for two other cousins and had been paid, asserting that he looked after the money on their behalf. He said that, as his cousin was still under age, he could not live with him. He reported, however, that he sees him almost every week and spends time with him at weekends, and helps him out financially if he can. He said that he had been paid Child Benefit when he was 16 years old and that he had moved into private rented accommodation when he was 18 years. He reported that there were plans for his cousin to do the same. He stated that his cousin had his meals provided in the residential centre, and was given a bus ticket and €19.00 per week. The appellant spoke of his concern to have benefit paid to all of his relatives who should have an entitlement and submitted that he had claimed, and attended the hearing, with a view to helping his cousin to get his benefit.

Consideration of the Appeals Officer:

The Appeals Officer noted that in addition to the circumstances of this particular case, there was a broader issue as to the payment of Child Benefit to separated children who are seeking asylum, or unaccompanied minors. The appellant had asserted that in similar circumstances to those of his cousin, he had been paid Child Benefit in his own right. This assertion had not been raised before the oral hearing so that the Appeals Officer had not been in a position to request a statement or to call a representative from the Department of Social and Family Affairs in order to clarify the matter. After the hearing, she requested clarification from the Department. She was advised that the young persons involved are in ‘direct provision’ accommodation, in the care of the Health Services Executive. Prior to the introduction of the habitual residence condition, some of them would have left this accommodation and gone to live in the private rental sector, being paid Supplementary Welfare Allowance (basic rate and rent supplement). During this time, the Department paid Child Benefit on an administrative basis, taking the view that a young person in this situation could be regarded as head of his/her own household and, therefore, as a qualified person for purposes of social welfare legislation. In terms of arrangements made to pay Child Benefit to some young persons in circumstances similar to those outlined by the appellant, the Appeals Officer was advised that the Department had made payment until about two years ago. However, a review of those arrangements indicated a disparity in that some young persons were paid Child Benefit while some were not, so that the Department adopted a consistent approach whereby Child Benefit was no longer paid in such circumstances.

The social worker involved with the young person in the case had submitted a letter of support with the appellant’s claim. Having obtained a statement of the Department’s position as to payment to other young persons resident in the unit where the appellant’s cousin lived, the Appeals Officer contacted the social worker for further clarification. The social worker advised that most separated children (unaccompanied minors) are received into the care of the Health Services Executive. Prior to the introduction of ‘direct provision’, adults and families were placed in hostels and paid full rate Supplementary Welfare Allowance. Project/social workers helped them to claim Child Benefit and it was paid to the young persons themselves. Following the introduction of ‘direct provision’, payment was made to adults and children under that scheme. The social worker argued that the young persons involved are not receiving the same care as is provided for children in residential care, and that it is appropriate that they would handle money, in the same way as children living in a family would; this assists in their acquiring skills associated with independence and allows them to participate in Irish society.

The Appeals Officer noted that the issues examined in her determination of this appeal were not strictly relevant to the question at issue but were examined on grounds that there might be a basis for a claim to be made by the young person himself if, as the appellant had argued, the Department of Social and Family Affairs was in fact making such payment. She concluded that while it appeared that the Department had done so on an administrative basis until about two years ago, there was no longer such an arrangement in place. She considered that while the appropriateness of such a practice and the change effected subsequently might well be questioned, those issues did not ultimately have a bearing on the appeal. She concluded that the appellant was not entitled to payment of Child Benefit in respect of his cousin on grounds that he did not meet the criteria outlined in social welfare legislation for a ‘qualified person’ to whom Child Benefit may be paid, as the young person in respect of whom the claim was made was not ordinarily resident with him.

Outcome:

Appeal disallowed.

End of Document