Forum Home → Discussion → Disability benefits → Thread
DLA and shared parental responsibility
Wasn’t suggesting that was something you were implying….
However, we know that DLA cannot be split. Do we even know whether there’s actually any guidance for determining competing claims similar to that for CB? - i.e. as in when the ‘hierachy of claims’ claims cannot decide who gets the CB, the guidance that followed the Ford and Chester cases (how many hours care each week? what do the court orders say? which address is the child registered at for GP, school and so on? where does the child keep their possessions? what is the likely impact of any decision on each parent?)?
My suspicion is that there isn’t - because whereas CB is paid to the parent or guardian as parent or guardian, DLA is paid to the appointee as appointee and with the presumption that a parent is (in the absence of evidence to the contrary) a suitable person to be the appointee.
I very strongly suspect that where DLA is already in payment and one parent is already appointee, the DWP would be extremely reluctant to disturb that existing arrangement - and the only thing that might bring about a shift in that position would be evidence to suggest the existing appointee was not actually suitable to be the appointee. In other words, evidence such that were it to be presented to social services or the family court might call into question whether the present 50/50 shared care arrangement really ought to continue…..
The above is speculation - there may be actual guidance about what decision makers should do in competing claims cases, but I’m unaware of any.
And without knowing for certain whether guidance and procedure exists, we’re all speculating here…..
Saying, “I’m sorry I can’t possibly tell you your options in case you do something detrimental to yourself” is equivalent to accepting the argument that one shouldn’t identify PIP as an option for an addict in case they have either an absolutely hopeless case or might use it in service of their addiction.
Not dissimilar to when one person wants to challenge the appointeeship of another. There may be zero basis for doing so but that’s no basis for “I’m sorry I can’t tell you that” Telling someone how to do something, accompanied by that “zero basis” statement is fine.
And so, yes, as Past Caring says, “holistic advice”!
On your point about advising someone with addiction problems, I really couldn’t disagree with you more Mike. I think this is a completely different situation where family law around contact and maintenance could very clearly be affected by the financial circumstances of either parent and/or how either parent may react to the situation. This isn’t about being moralistic Mike, it’s about understanding when benefits advice might stray into other areas of law and hence needs to be mediated and appropriate.
it’s about understanding when benefits advice might stray into other areas of law and hence needs to be mediated and appropriate.
I’ll go further. Benefits advice is about an objective rights based activity. When you get into this kind of representation then it begins to approach “my client right or wrong”. Unless you have that ‘holistic’ view across all parties then you risk being partisan on behalf of the wrong party.
Saying, “I’m sorry I can’t possibly tell you your options in case you do something detrimental to yourself” is equivalent to accepting the argument that one shouldn’t identify PIP as an option for an addict in case they have either an absolutely hopeless case or might use it in service of their addiction.
Not dissimilar to when one person wants to challenge the appointeeship of another. There may be zero basis for doing so but that’s no basis for “I’m sorry I can’t tell you that” Telling someone how to do something, accompanied by that “zero basis” statement is fine.
And so, yes, as Past Caring says, “holistic advice”!
On your point about advising someone with addiction problems, I really couldn’t disagree with you more Mike. I think this is a completely different situation where family law around contact and maintenance could very clearly be affected by the financial circumstances of either parent and/or how either parent may react to the situation. This isn’t about being moralistic Mike, it’s about understanding when benefits advice might stray into other areas of law and hence needs to be mediated and appropriate.
I’m not sure why you think we’re disagreeing.
My point is that if someone wants to know what the process is then we advise them. I cannot see why we would not. That advice comes with caveats and they may be strong ones because, as you say, there could be an impact on other areas. Thus the other points I made about qualifying the advice.
There is a difference between advice and representation though. At no point have I suggested you would pick this up as a case or advocate/represent. Absolutely not unless there was strong, conclusive evidence of no impact on other areas and even then I’d be hesitant precisely because it’s person against person not person against organisation.