Case Studies » One Parent Family » One Parent Family - Case from Annual Report 2017 (ref: 2017/10)

Background: The Department made a revised decision that the appellant was not  entitled to One Parent Family Payment (OFP) for an approximately 15 month period from September 2015 to December 2016 when her son was in foster care. As a result of this decision, an overpayment of almost €15,000 was assessed against the appellant. In appealing the decision, the appellant stated that her son was only ever under interim care orders of 28 days duration and that every month she expected the order to be  lifted. During the care period the appellant received help for significant health issues. She states she had daily access to her son and continued to buy all his clothes and food and paid for any extracurricular activities at his crèche whilst he was in care.

Oral hearing: The appellant attended the hearing with a representative from her local Citizens Information Centre (CIC). The appellant, who is in her mid-twenties and has an almost three year old son, developed mental health and alcohol/drug problems soon after the birth of her child. She took part in a one-month treatment programme in January 2015 during which time her son was cared for by her mother. However she relapsed and her son was taken into care in September 2015. He was placed into the care of the appellant’s brother and his wife. In November/December 2015 the appellant once again had to go into a treatment centre and remained there for a few months.

Every month the appellant went to court to try to get her son returned as he was only on 28 day interim orders. She stated that both the HSE and Tusla were aware that she was in receipt of OFP. She maintained that during all that time she continued paying for essentials for her son and also had to continue paying rent on their house as every month she expected him home. She remained her son’s legal guardian and saw him every day except when she was away for treatment. From summer 2016 he began staying for overnights in her house and was officially returned to her in January 2017. She is claiming OFP since his return to the family home.

The CIC representative did not consider that it was appropriate for the Department to raise an overpayment considering that the appellant would have been on an alternative social welfare payment if she had not been receiving OFP, as she had no other income. The CIC representative also pointed out that the appellant had received the notice of overpayment just after her son had resumed living with the appellant and this had a very negative effect on her well-being.

Consideration: The Appeals Officer was satisfied from the evidence that the Department was correct and that the appellant had no right to continued payment of OFP once her son was taken into care. Based on the oral hearing it was equally clear that the appellant never set out to defraud the Department or to claim anything to which she was not entitled. As she was keeping a home for her son to return to and generally had daily contact with him, she incorrectly, believed that she was still entitled to payment of OFP. The Appeals Officer also noted that the appellant had continued paying for much of her son’s upkeep and, as the representative of the CIC pointed out, the appellant would clearly have had an entitlement to a different payment such as Disability Allowance if the OFP had been stopped.

The Appeals Officer noted the very difficult circumstances for both the appellant and her young son. The Appeals Officer considered that a decision with retrospective effect with the consequence of raising an overpayment would be grossly unfair on the appellant. While the Appeals Officer upheld the Department’s decision that the appellant had no entitlement to OFP he decided that the application of Section 302(b) of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005 was appropriate and determined that the decision should take effect from 7 December 2016. In those circumstances no overpayment arose.

Outcome: Appeal allowed.