Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) Wins Two Child Claim

Mr Justice Ouseley accepted the claim brought by the Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) on behalf of one claimant household that the exception to the two-child rule for cared-for children was perverse because it was only available where the cared-for child was the third or subsequent child.  As the judge identified: ‘…the purpose of the exception is to encourage, or at least avoid discouraging, a family from looking after a child who would otherwise be in local authority care, with the disadvantages to the child over family care which that can entail and the public expenditure it can require.’  Only making the exception available if the cared-for child was not the first or second child was, according to the judge, ‘…not rationally connected with the purposes of the legislation and indeed it is in conflict with them.’

The ruling means that all children looked after by family members  claiming tax credits or universal credit will not be taken into account for the purposes of the two-child limit.

Commenting on the ruling, CPAG’s solicitor, Carla Clarke, said:

‘This is an important in-road into a flagship welfare reform policy.  The irrationality of limiting the exception for children cared for in kinship arrangements to third or subsequent children  has been raised on numerous occasions by various bodies, yet rather than accepting such legitimate criticisms and removing the restriction, it has required taking the DWP to court for the unlawfulness to be properly recognised.’

CPAG’s wider challenge to the lawfulness of the two-child rule as breaching fundamental human rights to private and family life and to non-discrimination was not accepted by the Court.  CPAG intends to appeal that aspect of the ruling.

Ms Clarke said:

‘This is a policy which is not simply about what level of benefits predominantly working families are entitled to.  Rather, it is a policy which necessarily encroaches upon very personal and intimate decisions about family size and planning and treats some children as less deserving of a benefit intended to meet their basic needs purely because of their birth order. We do not agree with the judge’s findings on the various human rights arguments and will look to appeal this case further’