Definition of dependent child for HB purposes

We have a client who has an o/p of HB due to his absence from UK for more than 4 weeks. The client is a British pensioner, separated but not divorced. He has had a new partner since the 1990’s who lives in Bangladesh,. He has 3 children by her, all of whom have British passports. The older two have been brought to UK and live with him but the 5 year old has been unable to travel due to illness. The client wrote , with the help of Shelter, to council before he left UK, explaining that his son needed a life-saving operation and he needed to be with him. The council didn’t reply and he went anyway, returning to the UK after 6 weeks. The council has rejected his challenge based on permitted absence for medical treatment for a dependent child for up to 26 weeks, insisting that the child does not form part of the client’s household nor live in GB and is therefore not dependent. Does anyone know of a more complete definition of a dependent child? The client sends money sporadically to Bangladesh to support his son. The money is sent to family members as his partner does not have a bank account. 

There is no definition at all that I am aware of for HB purposes.  If the Council are suggesting that the term “dependant” must be read as meaning a member of the “family” as defined for benefit purposes, you could point to para 52 of Schedule 5 which talks about supplements paid with other state benefits for dependants who are not members of the family.  Apart from the chapter on student income, this is the only other place where the regs use the word “dependant” as a stand-alone term.  I would argue that this unusual and undefined term, rather than the more obvious “member of the claimant’s family”, has been used precisely because the intention was that it should not be limited to family members.

In the contribution based benefits you used to get additions for dependants if you were contributing an amount to their maintenance that was at least equal to the supplement you were applying for.  Don’t know if that can be used as an analogous argument - does the claimant pay at least as much as a child allowance in the MT benefits, for example?

presumably you will be able to prove dependency easily….