Case Studies » Family Income Supplement » Family Income Supplement -Case from 2016 Annual Report (ref: 2016/21)

2016/21 – Family Income Supplement

Oral hearing

Question at issue: Eligibility (maintenance)

Background: The appellant applied for Family Income Supplement (FIS) in 2016, stating that his daughter was residing with her mother and that he made a voluntary contribution of €30.00 per week for her maintenance. His claim was refused on grounds that the child did not live with him and that he was not wholly or mainly maintaining his former partner, the child’s mother, citing the provisions of Article 13(6) of the Social Welfare (Consolidated Claims, Payments and Control) Regulations 2007 (S.I. No. 142 of 2007) as follows:

(6) Notwithstanding the provisions of sub-article (4), a qualified child resident with one parent who is living apart from the other parent and who is not claiming or in receipt of benefit or assistance shall be regarded as residing with the other parent if that other parent is contributing substantially to the child’s maintenance.

In an appeal, made with the assistance of the local Money Advice and Budgeting Service (MABS), it was submitted that the appellant was contributing substantially to the maintenance of his child. It was pointed out that the child lived with her mother, who was not claiming or receiving benefit or assistance. Accordingly, it was asserted that the child should be regarded as residing with the appellant for the purposes of his FIS claim, in line with the provisions of Article 13(6).

Consideration: The Appeals Officer noted the provisions of Article 13(6), and the circumstances in which it prescribes that a qualified child residing with one parent, who is living apart from the other, may be regarded as residing with the other parent for purposes of a FIS claim. He noted that the appellant was paying maintenance of €30.00 per week on a voluntary basis and, given that this amount exceeds the weekly rate of €29.80 payable to social welfare recipients in respect of a child dependant, he accepted that the appellant was contributing substantially to the maintenance of his child. He concluded that, in the circumstances, the child should be regarded as residing with the appellant for purposes of his FIS claim.

Outcome: Appeal allowed.