UK mothers with children from abusive relationships discriminated against by benefits system, court told

TruthLens AI Suggested Headline:

"Court Hears Case of Mothers Denied Benefits Due to Two-Child Cap in Abusive Relationships"

View Raw Article Source (External Link)
Raw Article Publish Date:
AI Analysis Average Score: 8.2
These scores (0-10 scale) are generated by Truthlens AI's analysis, assessing the article's objectivity, accuracy, and transparency. Higher scores indicate better alignment with journalistic standards. Hover over chart points for metric details.

TruthLens AI Summary

Two mothers have brought a legal challenge against the UK’s universal credit system, claiming discrimination after being denied benefits due to the government’s two-child cap policy. The women, referred to as LMN and EFG, contend that the benefits system does not adequately account for the circumstances under which they conceived their children, specifically highlighting that both were in abusive relationships. The court was informed that while there are exceptions to the two-child limit, including a 'rape clause' that allows benefits for children conceived through sexual assault, this clause applies only to third or subsequent children. Consequently, this leaves women like LMN and EFG without any recourse for their first two children, despite the traumatic circumstances of their conception. LMN has older children who are in care and two younger children living with her. She was denied an exception when one of her older children returned home, while EFG faced a similar situation where her benefits were initially granted for her third child, only to be rescinded when her fourth child was born.

Karon Monaghan KC, representing the mothers, argued that the current regulations are irrational and infringe upon their rights under Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects against discrimination. Monaghan emphasized the government’s responsibility under Article 3 of the Convention, which prohibits inhumane treatment, to ensure that women are not financially penalized due to the circumstances of their children's conception. The legal representatives highlighted that the financial implications for these women are minimal compared to the overall benefits budget of over £300 billion. The court hearing, which saw neither mother present, is set to continue, as the legal team seeks to challenge the fairness and legality of the current benefits framework that disproportionately affects vulnerable women who have experienced abuse.

TruthLens AI Analysis

You need to be a member to generate the AI analysis for this article.

Log In to Generate Analysis

Not a member yet? Register for free.

Unanalyzed Article Content

Two mothers who conceived children while in physically abusive relationships have been discriminated against after being denied access to benefits, a court has been told.

The women launched a challenge against the universal credit system after being denied an exception to the two-child cap.

The cap typically has exceptions, one of which is the “rape clause”, which means that a child conceived through sexual assault will still be covered by benefits.

On Tuesday, however, Leeds administrative court was told that this rule only applies to third or subsequent children, meaning that some woman are unable to claim an exception if their first two children were conceived non-consensually.

Karon Monaghan KC, representing the women, who can be identified only as LMN and EFG, said the pair conceived their children when they were in their teens and vulnerable.

Monaghan said both women were regularly subjected to violence and coercion during their respective relationships, with one saying she was choked until she lost consciousness and raped multiple times.

The court was told that LMN had older children who were in care, as well as two children who lived with her. When one of her older children returned home, however, she was refused an exception to the two-child limit that she thought she had been entitled to.

The other woman, EFG, had two children who were the conceived through rape and a third who was conceived through a consensual relationship.

The court heard that EFG was initially paid for her third child but that the payments were rescinded once her fourth child was born, with the Department for Work and Pensions telling her she could only claim for two children, not four, due to the “ordering provisions”.

Monaghan told the judge Mrs Justice Collins Rice that these ordering provisions were irrational and breached the women’s right not to be discriminated against under article 14 of the European convention on human rights.

She also told the court that the government had an obligation under article 3 of the convention, which prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, to ensure that “women are not penalised” and “they have the resources to support themselves”.

“It must ensure it doesn’t take away benefits because the two children are the product of non-consensual sex,” Monaghan said.

She said the money these women could receive was “a drop in an ocean” of the £300bn-plus national benefits budget.

The hearing, which neither woman attended in person, is due to continue on Wednesday.

Back to Home
Source: The Guardian