I move amendment No. 1:—
In pages 4 and 5, Section 3 (3), to delete paragraph (a) and substitute the following paragraphs:—
(a) subject to paragraph (b) of this sub-section, a child shall be regarded as being maintained by the person mentioned in whichever of the following sub-paragraphs is applicable—
(i) where the child normally resides with his father, the father,
(ii) where the child normally resides with his step-father, the step-father,
(iii) where the child normally resides with his mother, who is a widow or is living apart fromher husband, the mother,
(iv) where the child normally resides with his step-mother, who is a widow or is living apart from her husband, the step-mother,
(v) where the child is being educated at a boarding school or is boarded out for the sole purpose of attending school, the person with whom he would otherwise normally reside,
(vi) where the child is an inmate of a hospital, the person with whom he would otherwise normally reside,
(vii) where the child is an inmate of an institution (other than a hospital) and would otherwise normally reside with a person who contributes towards the cost of his maintenance in the institution, that person,
(viii) in any case to which none of the foregoing sub-paragraphs is applicable, the head of a household of which the child is normally a resident member,
and the child shall be deemed not to be maintained by any other person;
(b) in any case to which any two of sub-paragraphs (i) to (iv) of paragraph (a) of this sub-section are applicable, the child shall be regarded as being maintained by the person mentioned in the first in order of the applicable sub-paragraphs and shall be deemed not to be maintained by any other person.
It will be recollected that, in the course of the Second Reading debate, Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney raised a question on the legal implications of the terms used in sub-section (3) of Section 3 with particular reference to "the custody, care and control" by a person of a child. An examination of the matter seemed to indicate that it was desirable to avoid the difficulties that might arise from a possible interpretation of these words. Consequently, it is proposed to delete that sub-section and insert a new sub-section. The purpose of the new sub-section is to get rid of this legal difficulty to which Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney referred, and to make it clear that residence with is the main proof of maintenance of a child by an adult. Where the child normally resides with the father, the father will be regarded as maintaining the child; where the child normally resides with the step-father, the step-father will be regarded as normally maintaining the child. If the child's mother is a widow, or is living apart from her husband, then the mother or, as the case may be, the step-mother and so on down the list. The paragraphs in the new sub-section set out the person with whom the child normally resides. That person will be regarded as the person maintaining the child. There is an omnibus clause to deal with possible circumstances not visualised in drafting the sub-section.