Attachment 2
PART B: QUALIFICATION
Child related qualifications
PP child - section 500E - shared care
Introduction
9.1150
Apart from section 500E, it is possible
for a child whose care is being shared by two or more persons to be a PP
child of each carer. A common example is where a couple have separated
and have joint legal responsibility for, and share the actual care of,
their natural child who is under 16. Such a child would satisfy section
500D for both parents, even if only one of them has claimed parenting
payment
9.1151
If the actual care of a child under 16 is being shared by two people
and only one of them has legal responsibility for the child's care,
subsection 5(2) (and therefore section 500D also) is only met by the
person with legal responsibility.
9.1152
If a child satisfies section 500D for two or more persons, section
500E provides that:
-
the child can be a PP child of only one person at a time;
- a written determination must specify the person to whom the child
is to be a PP child;
- each person who has claimed parenting
payment is to be given a copy of the determination; and
- the
determination may be made even if only one of them has claimed parenting
payment
One person has the greater degree of care
9.1153
The terms of section 500E do not list any specific criteria which
should or should not be taken into account in making a determination.
Therefore, all the circumstances of the case are relevant in reaching a
decision. However, given that qualification for parenting payment is
based upon having the care of a child, it will generally be appropriate
to give primary consideration to which person has the greater degree of
care of the child.
9.1154
Therefore, the person who has the greater degree of care of a child
should generally be determined as the person in relation to whom the
child is to be a PP child. For example, this would mean that where one
person has the care of a child for 55% of the time over a period, and a
second person has the child for the remaining 45%, the child would be
determined as a PP child of the person with 55% care, even if that
person has not claimed parenting payment.
Care of child shared equally
9.1155
In cases where the child's care is approximately shared equally,
other factors will generally become the primary consideration. For this
purpose, the care should be accepted as being approximately equal where
the degree of care differs by less than 10%. The factors to consider
in these cases are outlined below.
9.1156
If only one of the persons is claiming or receiving parenting
payment, that person should be determined as the person in relation to
whom the child is to be a PP child.
9.1157
If each person is claiming or receiving parenting payment, but only
one of them is reliant upon a favourable determination to qualify, that
person should be determined as the person in relation to whom the child
is to be a PP child. For example, this could apply where the other
person has another PP child.
9.1158
If both are reliant upon a favourable determination to qualify, the
relative financial circumstances of each person should be used as the
general basis for deciding. This should be assessed by comparing the rate of
parenting payment that would be payable to each person. The person who
would receive the higher rate should be determined as the person In
relation to whom the child is to be a PP child.
9.1159
If the rate of parenting payment that would be payable to each person
is approximately the same (ie the difference is less than $10 pf), and
one of them has been receiving parenting payment in relation to the
child continuously for a reasonable period of time, this should be used
as the general basis for deciding. For example, this would generally
apply where one person is currently receiving parenting payment and the
other person has recently lodged a claim. As a guide, 13 weeks or more
should be considered a reasonable period of time for this purpose.
Payment of sole parent pension or parenting allowance immediately
before parenting payment is also included in the period.
9.1160
The rationale for the above is that it is open to a decision maker to
base the decision on the impact that it would have an each person. It is
reasonable to argue that 'maintaining the status quo' that exists would
produce an outcome which is preferable to changing the situation.
Example:
- Mary and John are separated and equally share the care of their
daughter Cathy. Mary has been receiving parenting payment since April
1998, and John lodges a claim for parenting payment in October 1998. The
rate that would be payable to John is approximately the same as that
which is being paid to Mary. It is fair to argue that a decision which
cancelled Mary's existing payment would have a more significant impact
than a decision to reject John's claim. Therefore, Mary should continue
to be specified as the person in relation to whom Cathy is a PP
child.
9.1161
If neither person has been receiving parenting payment in relation to
the child continuously for a reasonable period of time, there may not be
any particular factor which readily provides a basis for specifying one
person.
Example
- Peter and Sue have recently separated and equally share the care of
their son Tom. Both have claimed parenting payment, and both would
receive the same rate of payment if granted.
9.1162
In such cases, it is appropriate to base the decision on minor
differences which would otherwise be given little weight. Examples of
this could include minor differences in the degree of care, the rate of
payment, or the time in receipt of payment. Any other relevant
difference should also be considered.
9.1163
As with any decision requiring the formation of an opinion, it is
necessary for the decision maker to consider all the relevant
circumstances and to make what the decision maker considers to be the
best decision. It will often be appropriate for the decision maker to
consult with other experienced officers to assess whether the proposed
reason for specifying one person instead of the other is justifiable in
the circumstances. It is important to document the basis on which the
decision is made.
Social Security Policy and Legislation - current as at 28/10/98
Notification requirements
9.1171
The recipient notification notice (in letters to customers) includes the following in the list of changes a person must notify within 14 days after the change:
- you start to share the care of any of your dependent children with another person;
- you already share the care of a child with another person and the time the child lives with you decreases
General rule may be inappropriate
9.1172
Decision makers must remain alert to the particular circumstances of any case which may justify a decision which is different to that produced by the general rules described in these guidelines. Where it is considered that the general rules should not be applied, advice should first be sought from the DSS Parenting Payment Help Desk before making a decision.
Return to paper by Fiona Carberry