A woman seeking back-dated child benefit payments for her son, born during his parents’ six years in direct provision, has disputed the State’s claims her family’s basic needs were “more than adequately met” within that system.
She did not know against what standard the State measured her family’s standard of living in direct provision to conclude it was “more than adequate”, the woman said in a sworn statement to the High Court.
Her complaints were not primarily about her family’s weekly allowance of €47.80 in direct provision, or the physical facilities, but rather the “restricted, institutional regime” they had to conform to and because she and her husband could not work.
Professional qualifications
Both have professional qualifications and found their inability to work and provide their own family home for their son “deeply frustrating” and both suffered depression in direct provision, she said.
Claims by the State that this system is “entirely optional” and they could have left it fail to mention applicants for protection here cannot work, she added.
There was “no recognition at all” by the State that people should not be subjected to this system for as long as six years, Michael Lynn SC told Mr Justice Michael White.
He was continuing arguments in the test case, supported by the Free Legal Advice Centres, by the woman and child aimed at securing backdated child benefit payments. They claim the boy is entitled to payments from either his birth in late 2007 or when child benefit was first sought in early 2008.
Subsidiary protection
The State disputes any entitlement to child benefit before May 2012, when the parents’ applications for subsidiary protection were granted.
Among various claims, the woman alleges inordinate and inexcusable delay in processing her subsidiary protection application such as to breach her rights, and those of her son, including under the Constitution and EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.
In an affidavit for the State, Tina Burns, a senior official in the Department of Social Protection, said entitlement to welfare payments was, until May 2004, based on being ordinarily resident in the State, meaning foreign nationals here could qualify for payments.
The Government was concerned the social welfare system could be perceived as attractive to foreign nationals, she said. In that context, it introduced laws making entitlement to social assistance and child benefit dependent on being habitually resident here.
The case was adjourned to resume in the next law term opening on May 25th.
