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

One Parent Family Payment Case 5

Question At Issue:

Whether the appellant may be regarded as a separated spouse in line with the qualifying conditions for payment under the scheme.

Background:

The appellant, an Irish national, was engaged to marry an African national. Following his deportation, she travelled to Africa and was married there. She returned to Ireland but her husband was refused permission to do so. Following the birth of their child, she applied for a One-Parent Family Payment. Her application was rejected as a Deciding Officer determined that although she and her husband were not living together, they were not regarded in law as separated.

Oral Hearing:

The appellant attended unaccompanied. She outlined the background to her marriage, reporting that her husband had been in Ireland for two years when they decided to marry. They had given the required three months notice when her fiancé was issued with a deportation order. They cancelled the wedding and he was deported some days later. She reported that she had been three months pregnant at the time. Having taken legal advice, she understood that if she were married, her husband would be allowed back into Ireland and that his good record of involvement in voluntary activities would assist his case. She travelled to Africa and spent two months there, during which time they got married.

The appellant outlined the efforts she and her husband had made to have the deportation order revoked. She reported that in spite of those efforts, his application was rejected on grounds that they had not resided together as a family unit for an appreciable length of time since the marriage. In response to questions from the Appeals Officer, she indicated that she had gone to Africa of her own free will and that she had expected that her husband would be able to follow her to Ireland within a month of the marriage. She stated that she remained in contact with her husband, by telephone, after returning to Ireland. She reported, however, that relations had deteriorated arising from stress, her sense of isolation, the burden of pregnancy, allegations from her husband that she was not doing enough to progress his application, and from problems in her own family. In addition, she had returned to her studies and was facing exams. She stated that she had not received any maintenance from her husband who was unemployed. She reported that he had phoned on a number of occasions to enquire about the baby, most recently on the baby’s birthday. She indicated that she was in contact with her husband’s brother who was married and living in Ireland. In reply to a further question, she said she was not sure if she would live with her husband if he succeeded in returning to Ireland as she felt there was now an emotional gap between them.

Consideration of the Appeals Officer:

The Appeals Officer considered that the key issue was whether the emotional bond between the appellant and her husband was broken or whether they were separated merely by geography and circumstance. He considered that the evidence suggested that, were her husband allowed to reside in Ireland, there was every possibility that the couple would be together again. He noted that no legal action, such as separation proceedings, had been initiated.

The Appeals Officer noted that the appellant had made strenuous efforts to secure permission for her husband to come to Ireland but that his application had been refused. He considered that in doing so, she had demonstrated the continued existence of a strong emotional bond. He concluded that it had not been shown that the marriage was over so that the appellant could not be regarded as a separated person.

Outcome:

Appeal disallowed.

End of Document