This question relates to a child who was born in 1997. While payment of child benefit has moved between the parents over the intervening years, payment has been made continually in respect of the child since the month following his birth. I understand the principal residence of the child and the matter of who should receive the child benefit is under dispute between the parents in this case.
It should be noted that payment of child benefit is generally made to the mother. In circumstances in which a child resides part-time with both the mother and the father, payment is made to the parent with whom the child resides most of the time. In this case, payment of child benefit was originally made to the mother and this remained the case up to May 2011. At that time the child’s father made a claim for the benefit and following investigation it was decided that he should receive the payment. As a result, the payment was made to him from June 2011 until February 2013, when the child’s mother submitted a new child benefit claim. Inquiries about the length of time the child spent with each parent elicited conflicting information, so the deciding officer referred the case for investigation. The parties were interviewed by separate social welfare inspectors and both provided evidence to show their son resided with them most of the time. The deciding officer, having considered all available evidence, decided to award payment to the mother. The other person appealed this decision. As is routine practice, the file was referred back to the deciding officer for review. The deciding officer did not consider it necessary to revise the decision.
In subsequent representations, I understand Deputy Shortall raised concerns as to the weight attached to a supporting letter provided by a social worker. In light of her representations, a senior official undertook a full review of the papers. The review concluded that the social worker’s letter should be excluded from the evidence. On this basis, the deciding officer again reviewed all the evidence and concluded that the decision to pay the child benefit to the mother should stand. As both parents claim the child resides more than 50% of the time with them, the deciding officer has made a judgment that the child can be considered to reside at least 50% of the time with his mother.
I can confirm it is normal practice to refer back to the original deciding officer when a revised decision is to be considered, as happened in this case. This is now subject to an appeal to the independent Social Welfare Appeals Office.
