Hello,

I am thinking that the only route to success in this appeal is unjustifiable discrimination, but hope someone can prove me worng...

Client is Polish, came to UK May 2004. She started work the next day, registered within the month with WRS. Away 5 weeks in April 2005, but 4 weeks holiday pay, so I think no gap in terms of continuous employment rules.
She worked for that employer until 2008, changed jobs before knowing that she was pregnant, and was dismissed by her new employers who were obviously not my sort of folk, shall we say.
She signed on for 4 weeks, then got another job. On MA from December 2008 (not worked for her new employer for long enough for SMP), son born February 2009. She resigned from her job during Maternity leave at the end of March 2009, no health issues or plans to look for work.

Thus far:
1) No issue about WRS registration period completed, full article 39 rights.
2) No question of retained worker status here.
3) No permanent residence in her own right, falling short of 5 years by over 6 weeks.
(Please correct if wrong!)

The issue is that she met a UK citizen in late 2007, moved in with him in 2008 and he is the father of her child. She resigned as he was working (and had been throughout their relationship), wanted to take some time with sprog etc. etc.

In November 2009, the Social Work department arrived one day and told her that her partner is a registered sex offender, and her son would not be allowed to stay one day longer in the same household as his child. Social Worker 'helpfully' tells client to claim IS, takes her off to temporary accommodation. IS refused, no right to reside.

My argument is that they had a durable relationship until beyond May 2009 (subsequent events being irrelevant to this), and she should be classed as a family member of his despite them not being married. However, as far as the Immigration (EEA) Regs. 2006 are concerned, he is not a qualifying person, as he is not counted as an EEA national by Reg. 9 unless he brought her back from abroad.

The discrimination (I think) is that if she and a French/Polish/Whatever EU nation citizen had met here, and this hypothetical partner's circumstances were identical to those of the man she did meet (apart from nationality) then she would have acquired a permanent right to reside before the date of her IS claim (if relationship accepted as family membership).

I can't see a justification for this, unless it is to stop people from exploiting our vulnerable citizens by moving in with them and starting a family?

I was wondering about a 'right to family life', but that may be ruled out by the fact that this problem was created by the Social Work insistance that the family life that would be denied was an unacceptable threat to the child.

Any comments on the chance of an Article 12 argument working or other ideas welcome, and well done just for reading thus far regardless...

Jon