Difficult situation

Ames

Alice_Holt wrote: »

This doesn't ring true to me.
If the father has custody, and the mother is not looking after the child, then she cannot (I assume) provide the necessary 35 hours a week care for the child. This is not meeting a condition for CA, and the DWP are making an error in continuing to pay it to the mother (having presumably been made aware by the father, the MP, and the social worker that the child has little (or no) contact with the mother, and also having (presumably) seen the custody papers.

What do others think?

Unless, of course, the situation is not as we assume since the OP has not been very forthcoming in her answers.

I've been thinking about it and it could be that a fraud investigation is separate to the friend trying to claim. You'd think with all the evidence it should be straightforward, but it's good if they're being thorough - how often do people post about malicious reporting when they're not doing anything wrong?

If that's the case then the DWP can't discuss the mother's claim with the father, which could be causing some of this limbo nightmare. I'm very surprised though that their MP can't get anywhere regarding the new claim, although there are rubbish ones out there.

GlasweJen

The DLA claim is for the child and should be transferred to the main guardian for the child, court documents will be plenty of evidence and the mothers reluctance to hand over the payment shouldn’t be effecting the process. Carers allowance is trickier as it involves shutting down the mothers claim and starting a fresh claim for the father.

A welfare rights worker will be able to get hold of the correct people to sort this mess out or a specialist social worker, this should all have been sorted when the child was being placed. It’s unfair to place a disabled child without adequate financial support being in place, even if it is with his father.

FBaby

This is not meeting a condition for CA, and the DWP are making an error in continuing to pay it to the mother (having presumably been made aware by the father, the MP, and the social worker that the child has little (or no) contact with the mother, and also having (presumably) seen the custody papers.

CA is suspected to be the biggest fraudulent claim in that people do not provide the 35 hours care that they should to quality. However, the cost of investigating would be higher than the award, so not cost effective to investigate, especially when 'care' that would qualify is so subjective.

Maybe she is claiming that she looks after the child during the week-end, and then do errands for them, take them to appointments, deals with schools relating to their disabililty... it's amazing how creative you can be to justify you provide additional care. Maybe there is an investigation taking place, but if so, will likely take quite some time to gather enough evidence to refute anything she might be saying.

The CA system is in such a desperately need for an overhaul.

LocoLoco

FBaby wrote: »

CA is suspected to be the biggest fraudulent claim in that people do not provide the 35 hours care that they should to quality. However, the cost of investigating would be higher than the award, so not cost effective to investigate, especially when 'care' that would qualify is so subjective.

Maybe she is claiming that she looks after the child during the week-end, and then do errands for them, take them to appointments, deals with schools relating to their disabililty... it's amazing how creative you can be to justify you provide additional care. Maybe there is an investigation taking place, but if so, will likely take quite some time to gather enough evidence to refute anything she might be saying.

The CA system is in such a desperately need for an overhaul.

All of the things that you describe as being 'creative' are all aspects of care. Anything that relates to the disability and is something that another person of that age would ordinarily be able to do themselves is a care need. That includes being on the premises in order to make sure someone is safe or to attend to an emergency medical need, ensuring medication is taken, ensuring that enough food and drink is taken, making sure clothing is appropriate, helping with washing and dressing, attending appointments, chasing up doctors and social workers, helping with play and leisure activities - these are all things that are affected by disability and if the person needs assistance in order to do those things then that counts as care. There's nothing 'creative' about it; those are the facts of disability and if someone has to do something for someone else then they are providing care. 35 hours a week is only a day and a half if you're looking after someone that needs someone with them 24 hours a day. If you had to pay someone else to do that you'd be looking at at around £280 instead of the £63 that people receive from Carer's Allowance.

FBaby

No point of starting an argument on this issue as it isn't really the point of this thread, but saying there is nothing 'creative' says it all. Most of what people claim they do as part of their 'caring' duties that count towards the 35 hours are the things I have done for kids every day for years.

Where does the care you provide to your love ones start because you love them and where it becomes care you provide because of their disability that you wouldn't otherwise. As said, extremely subjective, especially when it comes to children.