CSA rule you do not need child benefit to claim!

A question about : CSA rule you do not need child benefit to claim!

The CSA tribunal have ruled that my ex wife does not need to be claiming child benefit or even qualify to claim it. My ex wife cannot claim child benefit because my daughter claims income support and child benefit and tax credits herself for my granddaughter. My daughter is a parent herself and at college and 18 years old. But the ruling was based on the fact that the mother cannot claim child benefit and does not as it has ceased to be available. The judge stated that this it does not say anything in the child support act relating to a young person receiving income support or child benefit. So for all you people out there who don't claim the child benefit you can also make a legal claim for maintenance! The judge stated that it does not say anywhere in the child support act 1991 or 1992 that child benefit has to be in receipt to have a qualifying child and it does not say that the qualifying child is not a child for the purposes of claiming benefits. So you don't need to have the child benefit and can claim maintenance on top... I thought this would be really useful to all the people who are not taking advantage of this! The sad part about it is my daughter claimed benefits as her mum was throwing her out and she takes her own daughters benefits in rent! I have paid over Ј40,000 in maintenance and never ever missed a payment. I does seem strange that child maintenance is paid, when my 18 year old daughter claims benefits as an adult and still be a qualifying child for the purposes of child support? There is also a 50/50 residence order and I'm the only one financially supporting my daughter. I did think that a child was someone under the age of 16 and a young person is not called a child? If my daughter is still a child in her care, why does she not claim the child benefit? Would this not effect my daughter claiming as a parent with care herself for her own child? How can you be a child and a parent who claims benefits to support a low income and day to day living costs? what does anyone else think?

Best answers:

• I'm confused by your reply, it could be me, but it reads as if anybody can claim at anytime
• I'm quite confused too.
  Are you saying that because your daughter is a mother herself and claiming benefits as an adult would that you don't see why you should pay towards her upkeep, especially as your ex earns Ј70k? I think if your daughter is under 16 then she can't claim benefits so it would have to be her mother who claims them, so I'm guessing she's older than 16. But technically she IS still a child, although I understand what you're saying, kind of.
  What confuses me little more is you say your son stays with you. Do you not claim CSA from your ex? If she's earning Ј70k then at a rough guess you'd be getting around Ј600/month. Seeing as you earn less than your ex, your CSA payments to her would be a lot less than her payments to you, so you're still getting money towards the upkeep of your son, no?
• i cant see that someone claiming benefit in their own right ( the daughter) would still be under a maintenance order.
  the state is financially supporting the daughter, not her mother, and as such the mother would have no claim against the father
  
• Thank you for your replies, sorry for the long explanation. My daughter started claiming benefits in her own right at 16, she is now 18. It was my understanding that the state is supporting my daughter, as she was helped by social services, when my ex wife told my daughter to move out. Child benefit stopped for my daughter and my daughter claims child benefit for her own daughter, child tax credits, care to learn and income support. The CSA did a check for the courts and confirmed it. But I thought there was no legal claim by the mother, the awful part is the maintenance I am paying is not going towards supporting my daughter, as she is making my daughter pay her rent and she complains on Facebook about not having any money due to paying rent to her mother. Surely both parents are financially responsible for a child and not take their benefit money. My ex wife would not get the benefits herself if she claimed child benefit for my daughter. The CSA have awarded costs and compensation to my ex wife as it was her appeal to get more money in the first place, she did not believe I was earning less than her and the CSA have checked everything out. We used to have an informal agreement and I used to pay her more money, I am not opposed to paying any money to my daughter, it is just that my ex wife has had four holidays so far and has left my daughter at home.
• Well this has been going on for two years! We don't know when it will end as my daughter is studying law at college, she is 18 years old now, if she continues approved education it could be up to 20 years old. If the CSA have ruled she is a child under parental care then a child cannot claim income support unless they estrange themselves to make an income support claim. Surely income support is means tested, I know my ex wife earns too much to get it and should not be taking it from my daughter, it is not housing benefit and my daughter does not pay council tax as she is in full time education. What I was wondering is, if I am the only parent who has proof of financially supporting my daughter, could I challenge the child benefit to claim it and give it to my daughter along with the maintenance???
• Just a clarification here. This was a CSA tribunal ruling. Essentially the judge ignored the Income Support because it is not mentioned in the Child Support act, even though under legislation covering Income Support, anyone claiming Income Support is no longer the financial responsibility of anyone.
  In addition the Judge rejected our claim that my ex wife could not be classed as a PWC because she does not qualify for Child Benefit. The judge's response was that my ex wife couldn't claim the Child Benefit - which was exactly our point!
  It's as though various bits of legislation, Child Support, Child Benefit etc have been designed to almost fit together like a jig-saw puzzle, but the CSA tribunal would only take into account the Child Support legislation. This is what is confusing. After all surely the law is the law and it should be looked at in its entirety, not cherry picked for convenience.
• The decision the Tribunal have made adheres to the law as it currently stands, as section 55 of the Child Support Act 1991 was amended a number of years ago to simplify the definition of a child. Although the law did used to exclude people receiving Income Support as being considered children for support purposes, it no longer does.
  I would also reiterate DUTR's point - this is not a CSA rule in the sense that they have decided these things. This is the law as it currently stands and CSA workers must adhere to the law. In your case though, this isn't even a CSA decision. It is the decision of a judge in HM Courts and Tribunals Service. Your only recourse would be to appeal to the Upper Tribunal on a point of law, but the correct law has been applied in the point you have raised here.
  While you could complain to your MP, it won't change the outcome in your case, based on how you describe things. Out of curiosity, is your ex paying for your son? And no, you can't claim child benefit for your daughter, not least because you say they've already decided your daughter doesn't qualify for child benefit.
• Just a clarification here. This was a CSA tribunal ruling. Essentially the judge ignored the Income Support because it is not mentioned in the Child Support act, even though under legislation covering Income Support, anyone claiming Income Support is no longer the financial responsibility of anyone.
  In addition the Judge rejected our claim that my ex wife could not be classed as a PWC because she does not qualify for Child Benefit. The judge's response was that my ex wife couldn't claim the Child Benefit - which was exactly our point!
  It's as though various bits of legislation, Child Support, Child Benefit etc have been designed to almost fit together like a jig-saw puzzle, but the CSA tribunal would only take into account the Child Support legislation. From what we have read this framework of legislation has been re-vamped to make this whole area of law more equitable. This seems to have been cast aside in our case; surely the law is the law and it should be looked at in its entirety, not cherry picked for convenience.
  My Granddaughter does not have my surname, but has the surname of her father.
  The reason this went to an appeal tribunal was primarily because the CSA appeared to pick the definition of a child from the Child Benefit rules, which is an irony considering that my daughters mum doesn't qualify for the Child Benefit.
  I mentioned the approximate salary of my ex wife's earnings because it relevant from the perspective of the Income Support. When a household has that sort or income, my understanding is that you would not expect to qualify for Income Support. The judge did not comment on this. It feels wrong that all these factors were brushed under the carpet. In the meantime, we are genuinely struggling and as I mentioned earlier, we have not has a holiday in years - not even a honeymoon. I am just blessed that I have a wonderful, patient wife who has been incredibly supportive throughout all of this.
• Your daughter and her child qualify as a household in their own right, I suspect, despite the fact that they live under someone else's roof and therefore have minimal outgoings. This is a different set of rules/Law to the CSA part of the Law. Unfortunately, the Law on child support doesn't fit quite well with other laws - it is particularly an issue for PWC when their ex is self employed, for example.
  Your wife earns well. Lucky her. She is entitled to nothing at all to support either her child or her grandchild on that kind of salary yet she is, seemingly, happy to have them under her roof which will be costing her. It's not unreasonable that she requests your daughter pay some kind of 'keep' otherwise how is she ever going to manage in the real world when she has real bills to pay and real priorities to juggle? Your daughter is finishing her education, presumably with her mum's emotional support as much as practical and financial which you surely can't object to? Or is the real issue the fact you think you are absolved of any responsibility becuase your ex earns more than you?
• The real issue here is that my ex wife is lucky to have earned a very high income. My daughter is claiming benefits as a parent with care herself and claims child benefit for her own daughter, my granddaughter. Income support is supposed to be a means tested support and my daughter claims it for herself and claims child benefit for her own daughter. My daughter claims of benefits for herself it as an adult and not as a child. Regardless of the fact that CSA have ruled she is still a child. I earn a great deal less than my ex wife and it concerns me that there is a great deal of benefits being taken from my daughter who is classifying herself as a parent with care and not a child. These benefits are going in to a home where they would not qualify to receive them if my ex wife was claiming them. This was the point I was making to the CSA. That surely benefits would not be paid to an adult and they are having their cake and eating it from the government. I am happy to pay the child maintenance but ex wife is gaining all the benefits a person would receive on a low income as well as my maintenance. My daughter is not benefitting and neither is my grandchild... The only person who is benefitting is my ex wife who went on six holidays last year and four holidays so far this year... Which considering we are only in April is pretty good.
• This is copied and pasted from gov.uk:
  3. Eligibility
  To qualify for Income Support you must be all of the following:
• between 16 and Pension Credit qualifying age
• pregnant, or a carer, or a lone parent with a child under 5 or, in some cases, unable to work because you’re sick or disabled
• you have no income or a low income
• working less than 16 hours a week (and your partner works no more than 24 hours a week)
• living in England, Scotland and Wales - there are different rules for Northern Ireland

You don’t need a permanent address, eg you can still claim if you sleep rough or live in a hostel or care home.
You might still qualify if you do unpaid volunteer work or go on parental or paternity leave. 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
• not living with a parent or someone acting as a parent
• a refugee learning English
  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.

From this it seems clear your daughter would be eligible for Income Support without needing to be orphaned or estranged from her parents, as she is under 20, a parent and in full-time secondary education.

• Sorry DUTR, I replied to a private message to address you're questions, we raised it with our local MP, who has also written to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State. We were disappointed that there was no response as yet and it has been some weeks, also we wrote to the department of work and pensions and are still waiting for a reply. I did think that Income Support was a means tested benefit and that as my daughter had help financially to receive benefits to live away from her mother as they were arguing all the time and it was my daughter who asked social services for help when her mother told her to get out of her home. I only found this out afterwards and thought it was strange that a child was receiving benefits as a parent with care herself to live away from my ex wife. Finally, our household income is much, much smaller than my ex wife earns.