Social
Security &
Childcare - European Law Directive 79/7 has primacy
Appeal
Court condemns demeaning.discrimination
against fathers. |
| London,
21 Dec 2004: After a legal battle lasting nearly 7 years,
the Court of Appeal today ruled that the
official UK Government policy of not paying subsistence benefits
to fathers who care for children after divorce was in breach
of European Anti-Discrimination laws. |
Hockenjos
Statement and  Press
Release:
By Alison Hill,
Ford Simey and Co
MR HOCKENJOS A
SINGLE FATHER
SOUGHT REDRESS AFTER BEING REFUSED
JOB SEEKERS ALLOWANCE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO CARE
FOR HIS CHILDREN.
THIS LONG FIGHT STARTED IN 1998 AND HAS BEEN TENACIOUSLY
PURSUED BY MR HOCKENJOS SINCE THEN. WE HAVE BEEN PRIVILEGED
TO ASSIST IN THAT PROCESS SINCE 2001.
MR HOCKENJOS HAD A SHARED CARE ARRANGEMENT FOR HIS TWO
DAUGHTERS PROVIDING BROADLY EQUAL TIMES WITH EACH PARENT.
HE WAS DENIED HELP BECAUSE HE WAS NOT IN RECEIPT OF CHILD
BENEFIT, A BENEFIT MORE OFTEN PAID TO MOTHERS. AS A CONSEQUENCE
HE WAS ARTIFICIALLY DEEMED NOT TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS
DAUGHTERS EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE IN HIS CARE FOR A SUBSTANTIAL
PART OF EACH WEEK.
THE COURT, ACKNOWLEDGING THE INCREASING AWARENESS OF THE
ROLE OF FATHERS IN THE CARE OF CHILDREN HELD THE SYSTEM
UNFAIRLY DISCRIMINATED AGAINST FATHERS WHO MAY, FOR EXAMPLE,
HAVE THEIR CHILDREN LIVING WITH THEM FOR 2 OR 3 NIGHTS
A WEEK.
THEIR LORDSHIPS REJECTED THE SECRETARY OF STATES ARGUMENT
THAT THIS SEX DISCRIMINATION COULD BE JUSTIFIED. THE COURT
COMMENTED THAT TO ALLOW A FATHER NOTHING FOR THE MAINTENANCE
OF THE CHILD WHEN HE SHARES CARE VIRTUALLY EQUALLY IS SO
UNFAIR THAT NO REASONABLE SECRETARY OF STATE COULD COUNTENANCE
IT.
TO PUT IT IN THE WORDS OF LORD JUSTICE WARD: -
"TO
BE FORCED TO TREAT ONLY ONE (PARENT) AS RESPONSIBLE
WHERE THERE IS A SHARED RESIDENCE ORDER IN OPERATION
IS GROTESQUE.
IT IS DEGRADING TO FATHERS WHO ACTUALLY - AND LOVINGLY - TEND TO THEIR CHILDREN.
A LAW SO FRAMED IS SO FAR REMOVED FROM REALITY THAT IT BRINGS THE LAW INTO DISREPUTE"
THE GOVERNMENT MISSED THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS ISSUES
OF SHARED CARE WITH THE MOVE TO CHILD
TAX CREDITS IN APRIL
2004.
THE COURT PRESSED THE SECRETARY OF STATE TO GIVE
URGENT CONSIDERATION TO CATERING FOR SHARED CARE ARRANGEMENTS
IN THE FAIR ALLOCATION OF BENEFITS.
|
MR
HOCKENJOS DOES
NOT WANT PARENTS TO EXPERIENCE THE HUMILIATION HE FELT
FROM 1997. HE IS CALLING ON DAWN PRIMAROLO, THE TREASURY
MINISTER UPON IT NOW FALLS TO ACT ON THIS HISTORIC APPEAL
COURT JUDGMENT, AND TO "START BY GETTING OUT OF THE
FIRELINE OF OUTRAGED FATHER PROPEST GROUPS BY ENDING THE
NEW LABOUR FARCE OF CONSULTING LONGTERM CHILDCARE AND CHILD
POVERTY PROGRAMS ONLY WITH WOMEN GROUPS OR THE EOC WHICH
LET FATHERS DOWN. EMBRACE GENDER EQUALITY - GIVE DADS A CHANCE
FOR TODAY AND TOMORROW'S CHILDREN IT IS OF PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE.
Read
Judgement |
Notes:
The
Directive - Article 4 of the Council
Directive 79/7 EEC - prohibits discrimination on grounds of sex
in relation to
benefits paid to protect against the risk of unemployment.
Following an earlier appeal Ford Simey assisted another claimant
in establishing the Directive applied to Income Based Job
Seekers Allowance.
The
figures - A majority carer in receipt of Child
Benefit and Job 'Seekers Allowance was paid £114
per week for herself and 2 children. The minority carer
received £49.15 per week. The disparity in income
increases with the number of children. According to Child
Support statistics at least 41,000 fathers are known to
have care for children at least 104 nights a year.
The
impact - Fathers who experienced this problem in the
past will only be able to seek arrears if they filed an appeal
as a result of the anti-test case rules. Current parents
in a shared care arrangement providing for substantial periods
of care who are not in receipt of Child Tax Credits will
not be able to rely directly on this decision but should
seek advice in their particular circumstances.
|
Dr
Pelling writes:
After a 7 year battle Eugen Hockenjos obtained a legal
ruling that as a parent with a Joint Residence order in respect of
his children he was entitled to Jobseeker's Dependants' Allowances
for them, notwithstanding the mother had the Child Benefit and Eugen
cared for the children less than 50% of the time.
This ruling will apply equally to all parents in shared care situations,
whether or not there is a Children Act Residence order, and although
not directly applicable to Child and Working Tax Credits, it is likely
to lead rapidly to the end of the present unjust system in which
a parent (usually the father) with substantial minority care of children
is denied Tax Credits for them while the majority carer (usually
the mother) obtains 100% of the Credits. At present even if care
were split exactly 50-50 the State will select one parent to receive
100% Credits and the other 0%. This system will not be sustainable
after today's Judgment.
The
Independent, 17May1996:
"Getting
a fair deal for fathers is going to be an uphill struggle.
It threatens
deep emotions and entrenched interests. But the case is overwhelming."
Anna
Coote, Deputy Director Institute of Public Policy Research,
IPPR,
"
Feminists must back fathers"
|
| A
message to our visitors: |
Due to the importance
of the Court of Appeal case, we replaced our much visited
homepage.
You can view
the previous homepage by clicking
here:
|
Background:
- Seventy-two
percent of all teenage murderers grew up without fathers.
- Sixty percent
of rapists were raised in fatherless homes.
- Seventy percent
of the kids now incarcerated in juvenile corrections facilities
grew up in a single-parent environment.
- Fatherless
children are twice as likely to drop out of school.
- Children whose
fathers are absent consistently score lower than the norm in
reading and math tests.
- Three out
of four teen suicides occur in single-parent families.
- Children who
live apart from their fathers experience more accidents and a
higher rate of chronic asthma, headaches, and speech defects.
- Eighty percent
of the adolescents in psychiatric hospitals come from fatherless
homes.
- Girls
growing up without fathers are 164 percent more likely to become
pregnant before marriage, 53 percent more likely to marry as
teenagers, and 92 percent more likely to dissolve their own marriages.
- A growing
body of evidence establishes a high correlation between fatherlessness
and violence among young men (especially violence against women).
- Fatherless
girls are nine times more likely to suffer rape and sexual abuse.
The Treasury
does not have a model that costs the long-term burden on taxpayers
from children from fatherless homes. Present policies create financial
and social burdens (including increased child poverty) well into
the future.
Government expenditure
on children is subjugated to the ideologal target of "halving
child poverty by 2010". But the multi billion expenditure
perceives family as being "a household in receipt of the child
benefit book". Preserving fathers in children's lives
does not feature in treasury policies. But this will now have to
change. |
contact