You are here: Home >> Case Studies >> Family >> One Parent Family Payment

One Parent Family Payment Case 14

Question At Issue:

co-habitation – whether the decision to disqualify the appellant for receipt of One Parent Family Payment, with effect from a specified date in 2008, was correct.

Background:

The appellant was awarded One Parent Family Payment (formerly One Parent Family Allowance) in 1991. It came to light that she may have married in 1999. Following several investigations by the Department of Social Protection, it had been concluded that while the marriage had taken place, it had only lasted a month and the parties were estranged by June 2000.

The appellant participated in a Community Employment Scheme and was paid in respect of four qualified children, whereas her One Parent Family Payment included only two. The case was referred to a Social Welfare Inspector for investigation and it was confirmed that the appellant had four children. It emerged that her husband (J) had an address next door to the appellant’s home.

Oral Hearing:

The appellant was accompanied by a Family Support project leader. The Social Welfare Inspector attended at the request of the Appeals Officer.

The Inspector outlined the details of his investigation in the case. He reported that when he had interviewed the appellant initially, she told him that she did not know the identity of the father of her two youngest children. However, when he put it to her that their father was her husband, J, she acknowledged that this was the case. She told him that her husband had stayed over the odd night after family funerals and a chance meeting; she denied that he was living with her. She advised that he resided with his mother. After a number of failed attempts to contact him there, however, his mother had advised the Inspector that he lived at the address adjacent to the appellant’s. The owner of that property had advised that she had allowed J and the appellant to have the tenancy for €4,000 as she was going away. On her return, however, she reported that she found that both houses had been converted into one unit. She asserted that the appellant and J had resisted her attempts to regain possession of the property. The Inspector established that a car was registered to J at the appellant’s address and he reported that he had observed the car there on a number of occasions.

The Inspector referred to the appellant’s failure to notify the Department of Social Protection of significant changes in her circumstances: her marriage in 1999 and the birth of her third and fourth children for whom she did not claim an increase in payment. He referred also to her statement to an Inspector in 2003 that she had had no contact with J since their short and failed marriage, despite being pregnant at that time. He stated also that the fourth child’s birth certificate indicated that the father was J, and the appellant’s address had been stated as his address also. In response, the appellant referred to each aspect of the evidence outlined by the Inspector. She said that her marriage in 1999 to J did not last a week; she was embarrassed about this and did not mention it initially when approached by the Inspector. She said, however, that she later accompanied J to the Inspector’s office and handed in a marriage certificate. She said that in 2003 she had been unaware of her pregnancy at the time when she was interviewed by the Inspector; it was a difficult pregnancy, during which she had been in hospital for an extended period, and she acknowledged that J took care of the children during that time. She said that when the child’s birth was registered, J’s mother had moved address and she did not know the new address and so she gave the father’s address as her own. She denied any knowledge of a car registered to J at her address. She asserted that a lot of cars parked on the corner near her house but said that this did not indicate that the owners were resident in the house.

The appellant presented a motor vehicle registration certificate in the name of J, using the address adjacent to hers, and a letter from the local authority indicating that he had applied to be placed on the housing list.

The Family Support project worker said she was aware of the appellant’s domestic situation and the ups and downs she had experienced over the years. She said that she considered the couple to be very responsible and good parents and had observed that J was always good to the children. She asked if he should be present at the hearing to give evidence. The Appeals Officer advised that he did not consider it necessary to summon J to the hearing but said that if the appellant required his presence, she could invite him to attend.

Further evidence:

Following the hearing, the appellant submitted a letter from the local authority stating that J had been found eligible for social housing (medical category).

Consideration of the Appeals Officer:

The Appeals Officer noted the history of the case and the appellant’s apparent reluctance to be open and candid with Social Welfare Inspectors in relation to her marriage to J, his address, and their children. She had indicated that their marriage was very brief. He observed that this would appear to indicate that an obvious and significant incompatibility had quickly emerged. He considered that such a scenario was difficult to reconcile with the evidence of an ongoing close relationship between the parties in subsequent years.

The Appeals Officer referred to the Guidelines of the Department of Social Protection in relation to co-habitation, including the five factors which are taken to point to a couple residing together as husband and wife, and he noted as follows:

• medical report completed by the family doctor

• Co- residence: The evidence indicates that adjoining houses were converted so as to make one unit where the couple resides with their children. The assessment of housing need relates to J’s future needs and cannot be taken as evidence that he is not now resident with the appellant. In addition, he was recorded as living at the appellant’s address on his child’s birth certificate and for vehicle registration purposes.

• Household Relationship Finances or Duties shared: There is evidence of sharing of duties in relation to their children. There is no evidence in relation to financial arrangements.

• Stability: The history of the case points to a long-standing relationship.

• Social: There is no evidence in relation to the couple being regarded as a couple locally or of sharing a social life.

• Sexual: The couple had children in 2001 and 2003 at a time when the appellant presented herself to the Department of Social Protection as a single parent.

Taking account of all the evidence in the case, the Appeals Officer concluded that the appellant and J were in a relationship which had all the appearances of a couple living together as husband and wife.

Outcome:

Appeal disallowed

End of Document