Help, i have a client who has significant mental health problems. For about 9-10 weeks last year one of her children stayed with father while mother sought help with mental issues.

There was an agreement that CHB would be paid across to father but that mother would still claim it. However he then put in a competing claim to CHB. Child then came back and is back permanently now, move was never intended to be permanent but temporary while everything sorted out.

So now CHB have written to mother asking when child moved out to decide his claim which i believe he is supposed to have withdrawn. I have noticed in CPAG that a child can still be treated as resdient but only for 8 weeks. Is this correct, if i reply saying that she went away for 9 weeks are they going to cancel CHB and CTC for that period in name of mother?

Thanks for help, i am confused!

Since your client was still contributing to the cost of the child her claim might still have been valid.

The 8 week rule applies to temporary absence so if your client demonstrate entitlement for that absence, then the fathers claim could only last 1-2 weeks - plus another three weeks under the priority rules if he refuses to give it up straightaway. The problem is that in cases of dispute the revenue decides who should get the CB and, in my experience, these decisions can be quite strange to say the least and there is no right of appeal - except by way of JR. Although the situation might become even more complicated, I think I'd be inclined to make another claim for the mother ASAP if not already done.

For HB/CTB, receipt of CB is not the first consideration (see page 710 of the handbook) so if the council does revise the entitlement - which is probably likely since council's often tend to look first at CB - there'll be good grounds for an appeal.