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

Child Benefit - Case 5

Question At Issue:

Whether a claim for child benefit could be backdated where the appellant was granted leave to remain in the State as the mother of an Irish born child.

Background:

The appellant came to Ireland in August 2004 and her child was born the following month. She made a claim for child benefit in November 2004 but was awarded payment with effect only from September 2005 having been granted leave to remain in the state by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform on a date in August 2005.

Oral Hearing:

The appellant attended alone. She outlined her circumstances and the background to her claim. She insisted that she had not left the State since arriving here. She had been living in “direct provision” accommodation provided by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform but left that accommodation after the birth of her child so that she could stay with people of her own community. She had been suffering ill-health at the time. She said that she had no choice but to return to that accommodation in March 2005. She then referred to her letter to the Department of Social and Family Affairs in May 2005 in which she submitted she was entitled to have child benefit backdated to her child’s date of birth.

Consideration of the Appeals Officer:

It had been determined that the appellant was entitled to child benefit from the date on which she was granted leave to remain by the Department of Justice Equality and Law Reform. The Deciding Officer had concluded that the claim could not be backdated as he was not satisfied that the appellant was resident in the State from September 2004 when her child was born. The Appeals Officer noted, however, that it is a condition of being granted leave to remain that a person has been consistently resident in the State. He further noted that an application for leave to remain, as the parent of an Irish born child, included a requirement that the applicant had been in continuous residence since the birth of the child. He took account of the fact that, having granted the appellant such status, the Department of Justice Equality and Law Reform had accepted that she had met that requirement. He noted also that the appellant had been able to provide evidence from the direct provision centre that she had been resident there from March 2005 to September 2005. Having examined all of the evidence, including that adduced at oral hearing, he concluded that there was no basis for rejecting the claim for backdating

Outcome:

Appeal allowed.

End of Document