Separated Parents Cannot Split Child CreditPrintPdfClose »

08/06/2012

Child Tax Credit (CTC) benefits cannot be shared between parents, even if they live separately and the children spend time with each parent, following a decision of the UK Supreme Court.

The case was brought by an estranged father who, in 2004 and 2005, was in receipt of income support and disability benefits. His two children lived with their mother, but stayed with him for three days a week.

CTC is payable to one person only in respect of each child, even when childcare is shared between separated parents. It has been accepted by the courts that this rule discriminates against fathers because it is more likely that children will spend less time with their fathers than their mothers. The question that arose in this case was whether this discrimination could be justified.

Since 2002, CTC and Working Tax Credit have been set up to replace the previous system whereby children’s needs were met from the tax system if the parents were working or the benefits system if they were unemployed. Now, there is a single system of child support payable to employed and unemployed parents alike.

Under current regulations, where parents are living separately, CTC is payable to the parent with whom the child normally lives and who has the main responsibility for the child. The tests are a standard approach to such cases. Under current regulations, CTC cannot be shared between parents and this was a deliberate decision on the part of the Government, which has stated its belief that this is the best way to help children stay out of poverty.

 

 

In discussion of whether the discrimination against the father was in this case justified, the Supreme Court commented that the introduction of CTC (and working tax credit) was a reasonable step for the Government to take in its aim of integrating the tax and social security systems and smoothing the transition from benefits to work. It was noted that the family courts have no power to deal with payments in such cases. It was also said that the mere spending of time with one or other parent had no bearing on the expenses that parent might incur. For instance, expenses such as clothing and school equipment might be met by one parent alone, regardless of the length of time spent with the other.

For these reasons, the Supreme Court declared that the ‘no-splitting’ rule was justified. The father’s appeal was therefore dismissed.

Emma Benyon-Tinker

Solicitor
T: 01803 407660
Email Me