|
For
years the UK government has blamed "absent fathers" for avoiding responsibility for their children. We face an epidemic of fatherless
children turning to crime, disrupting schools and taking
drugs, against a backdrop of the highest rates of teenage
pregnancy in Europe. It is plainly absurd that Government
stubbornly shies away from updating mechanisms which can
help fathers to remain in the lives of their children.
When
temporary illness, disability or unemployment hits,
it is government policy to withhold subsistence
benefits from fathers. Such denial of any social
assistance drives fathers out of their children's
lives. Government policy itself deepens a national
tradition of permanent social alienation, between
generations and between the sexes, for no other
reason than blind prejudice.
Throughout
Europe countries have successfully implemented
equal opportunities in the family as well as in
the workplace, but the UK government has for 6
years held out against the idea that both parents
can have a share in their children's upbringing.
In
1997 Eugen was given a Joint Residence Order for his
two daughters by which they spent 45% of the week with him and 55% with his former wife. Naturally, as a Jobseeker's claimant he expected to receive
a proportionate part of the dependants allowances and
premiums so that he could provide for his family while
seeking work.
But
because his ex-wife had the Child Benefit book, under
the Jobseeker's Allowance Regulations 1996 [Reg.77] he
got nothing, while she, although not a full-time parent, was awarded 100% allowances, premiums and tax credits for the children.
An EC
Directive (79/7) forbids sex discrimination, direct or indirect, in schemes, as under the Jobseekers
Act 1995, which protect against unemployment. So Eugen
brought a test case alleging sex discrimination.
After
one trip to the Court of Appeal, which decided in Eugen's
favour that Directive 79/7 did apply to Income-based
Jobseeker's Allowance [see law report The Times 17 May 2001], Social Security Commissioner Mr J.Mesher ruled in January 2003 that to link
Jobseeker's allowances and premiums to Child Benefit
was indirectly sex discriminatory, and could not be objectively justified, but then went on to substitute a new legal test for eligibility which is equally
discriminatory.
Commissioner
Mesher held that to qualify for the Jobseeker's allowances for children, the child
must usually live with the claimant, and he upheld the existing rule that at any time a child
can only be in that position in relation to one parent. He said that even if this was discriminatory it was objectively justified,
so the State would still not breach Directive 79/7.
So
Eugen still did not qualify for the allowances, as the
children lived with him for less than 50% of the time
and thus did not "usually live" with him.
Since
statistics show that in at least 90% of shared care situations
it is the mother who has the children for 50% or more
of the time (i.e. they usually live with her), indirect sex discrimination remains, and a father who cares for his children 49.9% or less of the week will still
get nothing in the way of benefits allowances premiums
and tax credits for children while the mother caring
for 50.1% of the week will get them 100%. This is manifestly discriminatory and unjust to fathers.
The
Secretary of State is desperate to avoid a ruling which
would require him to revolutionise the social security
and tax credit systems by apportioning allowances and
credits between separated parents who both substantially
care for their children. He is arguing that this would
be administratively unworkable.
Yet already in
the Child Support Agency such a system is in place dealing
with millions of parents, by which an assessment has
to be made of whether children are staying 0,1,2, or
3 nights a week on average with the parent paying child
support so that he can be given the appropriate discount
(0, 1/7, 2/7, or 3/7 respectively).
Eugen’s
second round of Appeal [CASE NUMBER: 2003/0893] was heard
by three Lords Justices in the Court of Appeal in London
during a 2-day in May 2004.
have passed since the Court reserved Judgement
on 20 May 2004.
Since then the Court of
Appeal has been working on letting us know what is to be
done in situations where a parent is ordered by a court
to provide
substantial
childcare for children, but where the Government negates
such order, by denying that parent subsistence benefits,
on the grounds that the
parent "can
not be treated as responsible for his two daughters".
Just as soon as we have news that the judges have finished
their work, we at www.fathercare.org will
publish time and date and court number.
|
