CSA rule you do not need child benefit to claim!

HoneyNutLoop

Being a parent and being a child are not mutually exclusive though. There are girls as young as 11/12 having babies (maybe younger - I haven't researched). My point is though, that being a parent does not automatically mean you are no longer a child.

Also, you missed the bold, underlined one. As in:
Also, you qualify if you’re age 19 or younger, in full-time secondary education (including A levels) and one of the following:
a parent; or
not living with a parent or someone acting as a parent; or
a refugee learning English or
You can also qualify up until the age of 21 if you’re one of the above, are orphaned or estranged from your parents and enrolled in education.

Not:
Also, you qualify if you’re age 19 or younger, in full-time secondary education (including A levels) and [...] the following:
a parent; and
not living with a parent or someone acting as a parent; and
a refugee learning English and
You can also qualify up until the age of 21 if you’re one of the above, are orphaned or estranged from your parents and enrolled in education.

If it was read your way, that your daughter had to be a parent and not living with a parent, we would also have to require her to be a refugee learning English. As it is, because it says only one of the three must apply, just being a parent is enough, in conjunction with being under 20 and in relevant education.

It is rather late in the day to trawl through legislation, so instead I will refer you to this: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/297972/is-20.pdf

It is the decision makers guide for Income Support. Pages 9 and 10, and then pages 66 and 67 in particular for this query. Hopefully they make things clearer for you.

Dadoftwo_2

Thank you very much for you're help HoneyNutLoop. The reason why we focused on the income support and child tax credit which my daughter claims for herself, is that the CSA focused on my daughter being a child and not a person with care herself.
The definition of a parent with care regulation 1(2) of the child maintenance calculations procedure special cases regulations 2000 section 3(3) of the child support act 1991 defines a parent with care as follows in part (c) states;

A person is a person with care in relation to a child, if he is a person- (c) who does not fall within a prescribed category of a person"

Could you please help us to translate this. Does this mean you cannot be a person with care for a person who is also a person with care?
Many thanks again...

HoneyNutLoop

No, it doesn't.

Whenever you see a reference in law to something being "prescribed" it means somewhere within the statute or statutory regulations a defined meaning or list is given. Some things can be prescribed only for that statute or statutory instrument that contains the prescription, others can have wider reach, depending on the language used.

With regulation 1(2) of the special cases regulations, you will see a definition of person: it states a local authority is not a person. So this means a local authority cannot be considered a person with care.

I will also repeat again, there is nothing that says a child cannot also be a parent. To flip it, there are specific rules to deal with cases where the non-resident parent is also a child.

HoneyNutLoop

Tracked down the other bit of law I couldn't find - knew it was too late for legislation.

Regulation 21 of the Child Support (Maintenance Calculation Procedure) Regulations 2000 is the bit that fully defines "prescribed category of person" as introduced in section 3(3) of the Child Support Act 1991. That's me done for tonight.

duchy

It would appear the OP "was forced" to prove they claim child benefit for their resident child so despite the dodging the question it appears likely and assuming the mother's income is as he claims he has expected his wife to pay child support but doesn't wish to pay it himself. There's obviously a very large chunk of this story missing as if his income is as low as claimed it'd be madness not to be claiming via CSA for the son.

None of the story really adds up -so presumably the judge made their decision on the full facts -some of which as obviously missing here <shrug>

My understanding is that the daughter's status as being under the care of the mother is always regarded as entirely seperate to the daughter's status as a parent with care herself hence the IS payable. As the daughter is in education I can see the logic that regardless she isn't in employment so the NRP's obligation to support her continues as normal.

The objection to her getting IS surely isn't the NRP's to make as effectively he's saying he wants to be excused from his parental obligations as the government is also giving her money. Seems a bit two wrongs in the judge's view didn't make a right and he had to rule based on the NRP situation in isolation and ignore the IS as his only concern was the financial obligation TO the daughter and not BY the daughter. Which does have a twisted but understandable logic.

FBaby

I'm with you on this one OP. It makes no sense at all that a child can receive state benefits as a single parent, yet still qualify as a child requiring maintenance from her parents. Surely IS and the rest cancels the need for parental financial support?

What I don't agree with is that you seem to be taking you anger on your ex wife rather than the system that clearly has missed a trick (for a change!). Is she really luck to earn her salary, or has she works very hard all her life to get there? She is right to ask your daughter for money towards the her boarding, especially if she is still buying all the food and things for the baby.

What is wrong is that she shouldn't be taking your maintenance, but maybe she is doing something good with it, ie. putting it in a saving account for your DD? If she is going to go to law school, she might need the additional funds.

Dadoftwo_2

What I have struggled to understand is how my daughter is benefitting by giving her benefits away to my ex wife. I would have thought that the lawful way to approach this would be that my ex wife should have claimed the child benefit for my daughter and my granddaughter. Then there is a legitimate CSA claim. However, due to the high household income which my ex wife is very lucky to earn, she would not be entitled to tax credits, child tax credits and income support and care to learn, which my daughter receives. My ex wife was claiming child benefit for my daughter but had to pay it back when my daughter moved out. But has since moved back in. I do not have any issue with paying child support, it just seems odd that my ex wife is gaining twice and has too high an income to receive benefits herself for any reason, but still takes them from my daughter on top of the child support.

Lovetoread

The more I read this thread the more frustrating it's getting.

What was your original reason for posting here? To let off steam? Or to ask for genuine help?

The courts have decided so there's not a lot you can do right now to change that decision. So I don't understand what you expect to gain from this?

If you're that concerned, and what it sounds like jealous of your ex and her money, why don't you offer your daughter and granddaughter to live with you instead??

I agree with others and think there's more to this story that you're not telling us. You keep dodging questions and stating the same exact things in each of your posts.

I apologise for being blunt but you're running around in circles here. We're trying to help you but you're not making it easy.

Dadoftwo_2

I apologise if I am not being clear.
What I can't understand Is the government web page here, says clearly child Maintenance stops when a child receives benefits in their own right and child benefit stops. This is the web page;
wwwgov.ukwhen-child-maintenance-payments-stop

This was last updated on the 13 th of January 2014.
I gave my ex wife the family home to help to be supportive and I have always paid full child support for both children. I just wanted to find a legal answer to this government we page, that is all really... Thank you very much to all of you for you're help.

FBaby

it just seems odd that my ex wife is gaining twice

But it's not your ex-wife who is gaining twice but your daughter. She is still looked after financially by her mother yet getting benefits to support herself and her own daughter. Nothing is being deducted from her benefits from the fact that her mum is still looking after her. That's what is wrong.


Are you implying that your ex-wife is not spending the maintenance you pay on your daughter? You seem to have an issue with her salary but it is irrelevant when it comes to you paying maintenance as well as irrelevant in terms of what your daughter is entitled to as a single mum.


What is unfair is that the system is exonerating your ex-wife from supporting her daughter on the basis that she is a mother herself when you are still legally expected to support her. It is without a doubt a significant loophole in the system, but unfortunately, when it comes to responsibility to supporting one own's children, this country has got it very wrong and there isn't much you can do about it.