Unmarried Mother in N.I wins right to Widows Payment

banie01

So following on from the UK Supreme courts finding today that a Co-Habiting woman and mother of 4 was unlawfully denied the benefits arising from being "wdowed" and left to parent alone on the death of her partner.
https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2018/0830/988503-unmarried/

I'm curious as to how or indeed even if this will impact upon co-habitees who find themselves in a similar situation here in the Republic?
I know from personal experience that in a similar instance, the grant was refused and refused again upon appeal here in Ireland.
At the time I never followed up as many many other things, including raising my son took precedence.
I am half considering picking a fight with the Department of Social Protection on the foot of the finding in the N.I case however
Given it is a common law jurisdiction, I'd assume the finding would be similar if it ever got as far as the courts.

So what say you Boards?
Left to parent alone after the death of a partner, co-parent?
Should the death benefit available to Civil Partners and Spouses be extended to all surviving parents?

Your Face

Not the Republic.

Odhinn

banie01 wrote: »

So following on from the UK Supreme courts finding today that a Co-Habiting woman and mother of 4 was unlawfully denied the benefits arising from being "wdowed" and left to parent alone on the death of her partner.
https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2018/0830/988503-unmarried/

I'm curious as to how or indeed even if this will impact upon co-habitees who find themselves in a similar situation here in the Republic?
I know from personal experience that in a similar instance, the grant was refused and refused again upon appeal here in Ireland.
At the time I never followed up as many many other things, including raising my son took precedence.
I am half considering picking a fight with the Department of Social Protection on the foot of the finding in the N.I case however
Given it is a common law jurisdiction, I'd assume the finding would be similar if it ever got as far as the courts.

So what say you Boards?
Left to parent alone after the death of a partner, co-parent?
Should the death benefit available to Civil Partners and Spouses be extended to all surviving parents?

It will require a courtcase. And yes, they/you should get it. Doesn't mean that yez will though.

jimgoose

If it got to Europe, they would in all probability take the view that it is not lawful to deny money to children/mothers on the grounds of marital status.

frag420

Your Face wrote: »

Not the Republic.

or Paris, never Paris...

Your Face

frag420 wrote: »

or Paris, never Paris...

Paris is in France.

banie01

jimgoose wrote: »

It'd have to go to Europe, I'd say - if it does, they will probably take the view that it is not kosher to deny money to children/mothers on the grounds of marital status.

I don't know if it would need to go to Europe unless the Govt became very intransigent regarding it.
The U.K is a Common Law jurisdiction similar to our own and the decision given down is based upon the tenets of the EU human rights directives.
I'd imagine that based upon similar circumstance and legislation that our Judiciary would reach a similar decision to the UK?

jimgoose

banie01 wrote: »

I don't know if it would need to go to Europe unless the Govt became very intransigent regarding it.
The U.K is a Common Law jurisdiction similar to our own and the decision given down is based upon the tenets of the EU human rights directives.
I'd imagine that based upon similar circumstance and legislation that our Judiciary would reach a similar decision to the UK?

You would think so, but the powers-that-be in this Fair Isle usually need to be taken in a headlock and bate stupid before doing the right thing - I'm just pre-empting.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Keep in mind this was a Windowed Parents Allowance and is not the equivalent of our Widow's/Widowers/Surviving Civil Partners Pension which just contains a small payment per qualifying child.

banie01

jimgoose wrote: »

You would think so, but the powers-that-be in this Fair Isle usually need to be taken in a headlock and bate stupid before doing the right thing - I'm just pre-empting.

Thats a fact.
It does open a can of worms I think regarding what consitutes a family and what benefits accrue with "family" status.
Be it Marriage or civil partnership, is a family that took steps to formalize their relationship more deserving of the benefit than a family who just had the kids and carried on without ever getting round to formalizing the relationship status?

It crosses over with another thread ongoing in Legal Discussion I think.
From the point of view of Social Welfare, a Co-Habiting couple is treated as "married" and benefits are means tested on that basis.
Unless one tries to claim the Widowed Parent Benefit, when you are told nope, sling your hook no formal relationship = No entitlement!

The Government really do seem to be having their cake and eating it too with regards to when they treat people as cohabiting!
If it costs them money, eg transferring PAYE credits or other "Family" tax benefits.
You need to be Married or in a civil partnership.

If it saves them money, eg Co-Habiting and claiming Social Welfare.
You're counted as a family unit and means tested.
Unless your partner is dead, where then there is no entitlemnt?

banie01

Mark Old-fashioned Deck wrote: »

Keep in mind this was a Windowed Parents Allowance and is not the equivalent of our Widow's/Widowers/Surviving Civil Partners Pension which just contains a small payment per qualifying child.

There is also a grant of@ €6000 to the surviving parent in the Republic.

jimgoose

Mark Old-fashioned Deck wrote: »

Keep in mind this was a Windowed Parents Allowance and is not the equivalent of our Widow's/Widowers/Surviving Civil Partners Pension which just contains a small payment per qualifying child.

The One-Parent Family Payment appears to be a fairly close equivalent here:

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/social_welfare/social_welfare_payments/social_welfare_payments_to_families_and_children/one_parent_family_payment.html

Hector Bellend

I'm not a huge fan of other people at the best of times.

This does nothing to help change my mind

jimgoose

banie01 wrote: »

...If it saves them money, eg Co-Habiting and claiming Social Welfare.
You're counted as a family unit and means tested...

This is the nub of the thing - marriage/civil partnership, aside from any social/religious connotations it may have for various individuals, is there in large part to protect you, your loved one(s) and your and/or their money and assets from the Government. And if by some chance the various courts here up to and including the Supreme Court were to shoot down a woman similar to the lady in that case in the OP, the Government would end up sending some clodhopper over to The Hague to try to defend it, and they would make fuckin' ribbons of him or her. :pac:

Graces7

jimgoose wrote: »

This is the nub of the thing - marriage/civil partnership, aside from any social/religious connotations it may have for various individuals, is there in large part to protect you, your loved one(s) and your and/or their money and assets from the Government. And if by some chance the various courts here up to and including the Supreme Court were to shoot down a woman similar to the lady in that case in the OP, the Government would end up sending some clodhopper over to The Hague to try to defend it, and they would make fuckin' ribbons of him or her. :pac:

I have to admit that this was my initial reaction. Knowing the law/rules, surely they should have formalised their relationship enough to protect their children?

Just common sense?

jimgoose

Graces7 wrote: »

I have to admit that this was my initial reaction. Knowing the law/rules, surely they should have formalised their relationship enough to protect their children?

Just common sense?

They should, but the legal maxim of Equity is always going to presume with the individual private citizen and against the Government and it's rules, and quite properly so.

Mrs OBumble

Widows payment should have been abolished 30 years after the marriage bar was removed.

It serves no purpose today.

banie01

jimgoose wrote: »

This is the nub of the thing - marriage/civil partnership, aside from any social/religious connotations it may have for various individuals, is there in large part to protect you, your loved one(s) and your and/or their money and assets from the Government. And if by some chance the various courts here up to and including the Supreme Court were to shoot down a woman similar to the lady in that case in the OP, the Government would end up sending some clodhopper over to The Hague to try to defend it, and they would make fuckin' ribbons of him or her. :pac:

Agreed.
I encountered the issue in 2007, my long term partner died suddenly leaving me parenting alone.
The Co-habitation and Civil Partnership acts were not yet enacted.
My partner and I were in Civil Partnership at the time from our time living in Spain but that was not recognized in Ireland at the time.

I described myself as "widowed" for a long long time after she passed, it was an 11yr relationship that ended on her death.
I got no support or assistance from the Department at the time and indeed when I became aware of the grant for Widowed Surviving parents, I applied was refused, appealed was refused again and after a little bit of a letter writing campaign I gave up on it sometime in 2012.

I've touched before on the issues encountered in dealing with my partners death in particular with Revenue in seeking to settle the estate.

Yes, marriage would have made settling everything a whole hell of a lot easier, but when you are 26 Death is a long way off.
Unfortunately we got caught up in buying a home and raising a child, laying the foundations as it were.
The wedding was planned, we were engaged and nobody expects to die on a Saturday afternoon getting ready to go out.

The crux of the case as outlined in N.I seems to be that it is inequitable to treat the bereaved children of non- married couple differently to those of a married couple.
It could be argued that Government (both UK and ROI) don't recognise bastards as being equal

Riskymove

banie01 wrote: »

The Government really do seem to be having their cake and eating it too with regards to when they treat people as cohabiting!.

If it saves them money, eg Co-Habiting and claiming Social Welfare.
You're counted as a family unit and means tested.
Unless your partner is dead, where then there is no entitlemnt?

it makes sense really, means tests are often about household income

otherwise if your parents were not married but you all lived together and one was a multi millionaire your other parent could claim benefits, grants etc for themselves and for you and any other children

Edgware

banie01 wrote: »

So following on from the UK Supreme courts finding today that a Co-Habiting woman and mother of 4 was unlawfully denied the benefits arising from being "wdowed" and left to parent alone on the death of her partner.
https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2018/0830/988503-unmarried/

I'm curious as to how or indeed even if this will impact upon co-habitees who find themselves in a similar situation here in the Republic?
I know from personal experience that in a similar instance, the grant was refused and refused again upon appeal here in Ireland.
At the time I never followed up as many many other things, including raising my son took precedence.
I am half considering picking a fight with the Department of Social Protection on the foot of the finding in the N.I case however
Given it is a common law jurisdiction, I'd assume the finding would be similar if it ever got as far as the courts.

So what say you Boards?
Left to parent alone after the death of a partner, co-parent?
Should the death benefit available to Civil Partners and Spouses be extended to all surviving parents?

Maybe the British will appeal it to the European Court

LirW

Change the payment and bind it to the child. Other countries have this option that when one parent dies (marital status of the parents doesn't matter) the surviving parent or the child gets the payment.
My stepdad got it, his dad died in a work-related accident when he was 6, he left behind a wife and for children. The mother claimed the money for the children and when they were older they could claim it themselves.

jimgoose

banie01 wrote: »

...It could be argued that Government (both UK and ROI) don't recognise bastards as being equal

I dunno, FF bastards are more equal than most everyone, far as I can see... :pac::pac::pac:

banie01

Edgware wrote: »

Maybe the British will appeal it to the European Court

Given the current Politcal situation and the importance of taking back their courts played in the Brexit vote.
I seriously doubt it.
It would be political suicide for the Government/Minister that sanctions it.

Riskymove

banie01 wrote: »

The crux of the case as outlined in N.I seems to be that it is inequitable to treat the bereaved children of non- married couple differently to those of a married couple.

basically they decided the payment was for dependent children of the deceased regardless of marital status the other parent

This could have an implication where there are no children?

however, they did say it may not apply to everyone. (I suspect this was to cover issues where a parent dies and they are not living with the other parent at all)

jimgoose

Edgware wrote: »

Maybe the British will appeal it to the European Court

They will lose.

Riskymove

banie01 wrote: »

Given the current Politcal situation and the importance of taking back their courts played in the Brexit vote.
I seriously doubt it.
It would be political suicide for the Government/Minister that sanctions it.

The ECHR is not strictly an EU Court
It current applies to 47 States who have signed up to the Council of Europe

banie01

Riskymove wrote: »

The ECHR is not strictly an EU Court
It current applies to 47 States who have signed up to the Council of Europe

The Tories have stated their intention to withdraw from the ECHR.
The stated wish is that the Supreme court will be the court of last resort for the UK.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-campaign-leave-european-convention-on-human-rights-2020-general-election-brexit-a7499951.html

Lucy8080

The names of the Father and Mother are enough for me, on a birth register!

Parental/Governmental, responsibilities and entitlements, should be reckoned from there.

.......

banie01 wrote: »

It does open a can of worms I think regarding what consitutes a family and what benefits accrue with "family" status.
Be it Marriage or civil partnership, is a family that took steps to formalize their relationship more deserving of the benefit than a family who just had the kids and carried on without ever getting round to formalizing the relationship status?

IMO yes.

You cant expect to have the benefits of marriage if you refuse to actually get married.

The couple in the article linked were together for over 2 decades and had 4 children, one of the the children is 23 years old!

It should have been a priority for them to formalise the arrangment if they wanted to receive the benefits of being married.

I mean 23 years and 4 kids?

banie01

....... wrote: »

IMO yes.

You cant expect to have the benefits of marriage if you refuse to actually get married.

The couple in the article linked were together for over 2 decades and had 4 children, one of the the children is 23 years old!

It should have been a priority for them to formalise the arrangment if they wanted to receive the benefits of being married.

I mean 23 years and 4 kids?

So in an instance where a payment is made to the surviving parent and predicated on their being a parent to dependent children.
Your view is no payment should be made unless the relationship is at least legally formalized?

.......

banie01 wrote: »

Your view is no payment should be made unless the relationship is at least legally formalized?

I dont think a widows payment should be paid when someone isnt a widow.

People are free to choose to marry or not.

If they choose not to then why should be give them the legal benefits as though they did?

I just think its a bit having your cake and eating it. If you want the legal benefits of being married, get married. But dont not get married and then look for those benefits anyway.

nim1bdeh38l2cw

Your Face wrote: »

Paris is in France.

Paris is in Texas.

banie01

....... wrote: »

I dont think a widows payment should be paid when someone isnt a widow.

People are free to choose to marry or not.

If they choose not to then why should be give them the legal benefits as though they did?

I just think its a bit having your cake and eating it. If you want the legal benefits of being married, get married. But dont not get married and then look for those benefits anyway.

The payment in question is designed to support the children of a dead parent.
Surely the legal relationship and responsibilities of parent to child trump the status of the parents relationship?

In the UK the allowance is based on the deceased parents NI contributions, as such it is an insurable benefit for the ultimate benefit of the deceased children.

Eligibility
You may get Widowed Parent’s Allowance (WPA) if all the following apply:

your husband, wife or civil partner died before 6 April 2017
you’re under State Pension age
you’re entitled to Child Benefit for at least one child and your late husband, wife or civil partner was their parent
your late husband, wife or civil partner paid National Insurance contributions, or they died as a result of an industrial accident or disease
You may also claim WPA if you’re pregnant and your husband has died, or you’re pregnant after fertility treatment and your civil partner has died.

In Ireland the benefit that best fits the circumstance is Widowed(Parents)/Surviving Civil Partner Grant

A Widowed (Parent) or Surviving Civil Partner Grant is a once-off payment designed to assist with the income support needs of a widow, widower or surviving civil partner immediately following the death of his/her spouse/civil partner. The current rate of payment is €6,000

Both the payments are to provide a cushion to the bereaved child and the surviving parent. Both are funded via Social Insurance.
I can't see any compelling reason why such a payment should be disallowed in the event of unmarried parents?

Lucy8080

....... wrote: »

IMO yes.

"You cant expect to have the benefits of marriage if you refuse to actually get married."

That's easily resolved. The Government should pay for all marriages, if they insist on making a demand of those couples who refuse to get married.

All would get married then!

The two longest relationships I know of,are unmarried ( from my age group) .

I know one person on a fourth marriage ,two on their third ,and one on their second.

Everyone in my group know that the two unmarried one's put in a shift in life that didn't have space for wasting money on getting married.

Check out a marriage thread here, and discover the amount of obligation a guest feels on their purse/wallet.

How much more does it cost the couple who go for the big church/hotel show?

.......

banie01 wrote: »

I can't see any compelling reason why such a payment should be disallowed in the event of unmarried parents?

I cant see any compelling reasons why 2 people with children would decide NOT to safeguard themselves and the kids by formalising the relationship?

Its a bit of a no brainer tbh, marriage is our societies way of giving you a heap of benefits (inheritance, tax, next of kin, etc) for formalising your relationship.

So if you want those benefits - formalise it. 200 quid and a registry office. Done. Its easier than buying a house.

banie01

....... wrote: »

I cant see any compelling reasons why 2 people with children would decide NOT to safeguard themselves and the kids by formalising the relationship?

Its a bit of a no brainer tbh, marriage is our societies way of giving you a heap of benefits (inheritance, tax, next of kin, etc) for formalising your relationship.

So if you want those benefits - formalise it. 200 quid and a registry office. Done. Its easier than buying a house.

I outlined my own reasons for being caught in a similar situation in an earlier post.
Life happens and all too often the immediate needs take precedence over the long term goal.

It's easy to say €200 and a piece of paper solves all woes, but that doesn't account for the time needed to get an appointment at the registry office or the minimum 3 month's notice period to marry.

Nor does it take into account the needs of the children in such a situation.

.......

banie01 wrote: »

I outlined my own reasons for being caught in a similar situation in an earlier post.
Life happens and all too often the immediate needs take precedence over the long term goal.

It's easy to say €200 and a piece of paper solves all woes, but that doesn't account for the time needed to get an appointment at the registry office or the minimum 3 month's notice period to marry.

Nor does it take into account the needs of the children in such a situation.

Life happens - but for 11 years?

Frankly if you are having kids with someone that you want to stay in a relationship with you should be registering your intent to marry when you are pregnant - simply to protect yourself and your child legally.

It takes a couple of minutes to make the appointment. It takes a couple of hours to go to it. And it takes a couple of hours to actually go and get married.

I appreciate people not getting round to things, we all have long fingers, but for me anyway - this was a priority to safeguard myself and himself legally.

I just dont know why people wouldnt.

Sassygirl1999

banie01 wrote: »

I outlined my own reasons for being caught in a similar situation in an earlier post.
Life happens and all too often the immediate needs take precedence over the long term goal.

It's easy to say €200 and a piece of paper solves all woes, but that doesn't account for the time needed to get an appointment at the registry office or the minimum 3 month's notice period to marry.

Nor does it take into account the needs of the children in such a situation.

give the grieving mother her spondolahs, she works hard every day for it

.......

Lucy8080 wrote: »

That's easily resolved. The Government should pay for all marriages, if they insist on making a demand of those couples who refuse to get married.

Its hardly onerous - its 200 quid.

I dont think its the cost that stops people from doing it.

Lucy8080

....... wrote: »

I cant see any compelling reasons why 2 people with children would decide NOT to safeguard themselves and the kids by formalising the relationship?

I think the reasons are social expectation, backed up by state/church expectation,or vice/versa.

Every couple would pay 200 Euro to register for such benefits , if that was all it took!

It would not require a church/registry office.

Lucy8080

....... wrote: »

Its hardly onerous - its 200 quid.

I dont think its the cost that stops people from doing it.

As above ^^^^^^^^^^

Your Face

Anika Nutritious Storehouse wrote: »

Paris is in Texas.

So is Dublin.

.......

Lucy8080 wrote: »

Every couple would pay 200 Euro to register for such benefits , if that was all it took!

But that IS all it takes.

Youre talking about a "wedding".

Im talking about getting married.

You can still have a big wedding at whatever point you like along the line, but its smart to pay the 200 euro and get the legals sorted once you are having kids or buying property with someone.

Lucy8080

....... wrote: »

But that IS all it takes.

Youre talking about a "wedding".

Im talking about getting married.

You can still have a big wedding at whatever point you like along the line, but its smart to pay the 200 euro and get the legals sorted once you are having kids or buying property with someone.

Who is the 200 euro paid to? Does there need to be a show?

daheff

Your Face wrote: »

Paris is in France.

so is Marseille

.......

Lucy8080 wrote: »

Who is the 200 euro paid to? Does there need to be a show?

Whats a show?

You pay the 200 quid to the registrar in the registry office.

Its easy to get married. You ring your local registry office and make an appointment to serve your notice of intent to marry. You go to the appointment (anything from a week to 3 months later) and fill out some forms, answer some questions, set your date which has to be at least 3 months from that point. You show up on the day, bring 2 witnesses or ask them to provide 2 witnesses, pay your 200 quid and its a ceremony lasting 10 minutes. When you come out you buy a copy of your marriage certificate and thats it. You can fluff it out with guests, music and your own vows/poems (nothing religious) but stripped right back thats it.

Lucy8080

....... wrote: »

Whats a show?

You pay the 200 quid to the registrar in the registry office.

Its easy to get married. You ring your local registry office and make an appointment to serve your notice of intent to marry. You go to the appointment (anything from a week to 3 months later) and fill out some forms, answer some questions, set your date which has to be at least 3 months from that point. You show up on the day, bring 2 witnesses or ask them to provide 2 witnesses, pay your 200 quid and its a ceremony lasting 10 minutes. When you come out you buy a copy of your marriage certificate and thats it. You can fluff it out with guests, music and your own vows/poems (nothing religious) but stripped right back thats it.

You just informed me of the show!

Does there need to be a show?

A show is something people pay to see!

.......

Lucy8080 wrote: »

You just informed me of the show!

Does there need to be a show?

A show is something people pay to see!

Well you need to show up - yes.

No one is paying to see anything. You are paying for the use of the staff and facility. Same as you might pay your solicitor.

DEFTLEFTHAND

....... wrote: »

Whats a show?

You pay the 200 quid to the registrar in the registry office.

Its easy to get married. You ring your local registry office and make an appointment to serve your notice of intent to marry. You go to the appointment (anything from a week to 3 months later) and fill out some forms, answer some questions, set your date which has to be at least 3 months from that point. You show up on the day, bring 2 witnesses or ask them to provide 2 witnesses, pay your 200 quid and its a ceremony lasting 10 minutes. When you come out you buy a copy of your marriage certificate and thats it. You can fluff it out with guests, music and your own vows/poems (nothing religious) but stripped right back thats it.

Sounds tragic tbh.

Very sterile.

up for anything

....... wrote: »

I dont think a widows payment should be paid when someone isnt a widow.

People are free to choose to marry or not.

If they choose not to then why should be give them the legal benefits as though they did?

I just think its a bit having your cake and eating it. If you want the legal benefits of being married, get married. But dont not get married and then look for those benefits anyway.

Conversely, why should there be legal benefits to being married? Why are a couple who get married better than a couple who choose not to do so? My sister and her partner are together 41 years this year and yet the couple next door to me who were married one year were already calling it quits.

Lucy8080

....... wrote: »

Well you need to show up - yes.

No one is paying to see anything. You are paying for the use of the staff and facility. Same as you might pay your solicitor.

Would it not be easier to register the Father/Mother names and take our lead/requirements from there?