Case Studies » Child Benefit » Child Benefit - Case from 2017 Annual Report (ref: 2017/03)

Background: The appellant had been in receipt of Child Benefit from a date in 1999. Following correspondence from the school regarding non-attendance, Child Benefit entitlement was reviewed and disallowed on the grounds that her child was over 16 and was not ‘in full-time education’. The appellant contended that her child was being bullied at school. She had tried to get the school to address the issue and made efforts to get him into another school but there were no places available and she notified the Department of Education and Skills that her child was now at home.

Oral hearing: The appellant was accompanied by an NGO advocate and the Home School Liaison Officer from the school. The Deciding Officer also attended at the request of the Appeals Officer. The Appeals Officer noted that the appellant had submitted substantial evidence that her son was being bullied at school. The appellant confirmed that he had not attended school formally since September because of this bullying and was now being home- schooled, although due to some confusion he was not registered with the Department of Education and Skills for approval for home tuition. The Appeals Officer noted that in order to be deemed a qualified child for the purposes of Child Benefit, it was a legislative requirement that once a child reached 16 years, he or she must be in full-time education. As this child was now being home-schooled, the question at issue was whether the child met the condition of being in full-time education as provided for in legislation. The representative from the Department stated that, in addition to the stated definition of ‘full-time education’ for those over sixteen years of age, they sometimes accept, on an administrative basis, that this condition is being met where the child is being home- schooled. The Department has to satisfy itself that the child concerned is partaking in a full- time course of study and they usually request a time table, list of subjects studied, information about registration for State Exams etc. The appellant stated that she was a former teacher and that her son works at his studies full-time every day. He is in fifth year, studying eight subjects and will sit his Leaving Cert in June 2019. She said that after he left school in September, she made extensive but unsuccessful efforts to get him a place in another school and that she had now got a place for him, starting the following September.

The Home School Liaison Officer confirmed the child is still registered at their school, that teachers there have been supportive and willing to facilitate study at home including providing him with notes of class lessons every week. He has been submitting exam papers for summer and Christmas exams to the school who correct them. The Department’s representative then advised that the situation sounded very akin to home schooling and that, if the appellant provided the requisite information about routine, timetable, registration for exams etc. and a letter from the school, she would be willing to review and reconsider the decision made to disallow the Child Benefit claim. The appellant later provided evidence of same to the Appeals Officer, including confirmation that she had now applied to the Department of Education and Skills for registration on the home school register and of a school place the following September for her son.

Consideration: The governing legislation provides that a child over sixteen must normally be in full-time education in order for Child Benefit to be paid. Article 160 of the Social Welfare (Consolidated Claims, Payments and Control) Regulations 2007 (S.I. No. 142 of 2007) outlines the criteria for determining when a child may be regarded as ‘receiving full- time education’. This involves ‘attending on a full-time basis a course of full-time education by day at an institution of education’ or "being on a Department of Education and Skills register for home-schooling’. The Appeals Officer observed that the ‘institutions of education’ as defined in legislation under Article 3 did not include a provision for home- schooling. She observed that the case therefore hinges on the meaning of the phrase ‘full- time education’ as it applies in this context and that the term ‘attending a course by day at an institution of education’ does not cover the scenario of home schooling. The Department indicated at the oral hearing, that they were willing to re-consider the additional evidence and to decide it on the basis of an administrative decision, whereby they would apply alternative criteria to the term ‘full-time education’ if satisfied that the appellant’s son was being home-schooled on a full-time basis. The Appeals Officer, whilst acknowledging a positive administrative decision in such cases concluded that the existing legislation does not actually allow for this interpretation.

Nevertheless, the Appeals Officer observed that the appellant had demonstrated that in this instance there was a significant amount of co-operation and interaction with the school. Whilst not physically attending the school, her son was still registered as a pupil there. He worked at home on a full-time rostered basis, was doing eight Leaving Certificate subjects, had notes and grinds organised for these subjects. The school provided ongoing support, supervision and on-line updates to him. In addition, they allowed him to both sit and have end of term exams corrected. The Appeals Officer concluded that, for all intents and purposes, the appellant’s son could therefore be considered as attending full-time education at the school, as the school/ pupil role is fulfilled in a similar manner.

Outcome: Appeal allowed.