On p660 of the CPAG handbook it says clearly that if parents are ent to IS ie not classed as persons from abroad but a child they are resoponsible for is treated as being from abroad then IS should be paid for the child in the normal way. I also remember being told this at a CPAG training course recently.

Unfortunately the reference appears to be wrong as the legislation it refers to only talks about partners. Does anyone know what the correct legal reference is to argue this point as I can't find it anywhere else.

PS, the claimant had also put in a claim for Child Benefit but I don't think it had been decided.

haven't looked at this for a while, but is it the absence of a reg that would allow them to modify the applicable amount that results in you being entitled for the child, whereas there is stuff in the regs that provide for modification if your partner is 'subject to imm control'?

Thats certainly a possibility but there is a fine line between an absence of a reg limiting the app amount and there being a reg limiting it but I can't find it! If anybody knows that this is the way it is then please let me know.

The normal IS rules must apply unless there's a Reg that takes the client outside the normal rules.

I've never found a regulation that deals with cases where children are subject to imm control but neither parent is. Therefore the notrmal rules must apply and children who are subject to imm control can be claimed for if neither parent is subject to control.

Note that if the partner IS subject to control the rule is different. Under para 16A of Sch 7 to the IS Regs a claimant whose partner is subject to control can only for themselves and any children who are NOT subject to control. Children who ARE subject to control are excluded, but only if the partner is subject to control.

This does not apply to lone parents with children who are subject to control, nor to couples where neither parent is subject to control.If neither parent is subject to control, then the kids' status doesn't seem to matter.