Commissioners for Her Majesty바카라 사이트檚 Revenue and Customs v MB: [2018] UKUT 162 (AAC); [2018] AACR 32
Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber decision by Judge Jacobs on 8 May 2018.
Read the full decision in
Judicial Summary
Reported as [2018] AACR 32
Child Benefit 바카라 사이트� Regulation (EC) No. 883/2004 바카라 사이트� whether a step child is a child of the claimant for the purposes of Head (2) of the definition of 바카라 사이트渕ember of the family바카라 사이트� in Article 1(i)
The claimant is a Polish national living and working in the UK since 2015. His wife lives in Poland with two children and receives family benefits. One child is the claimant바카라 사이트檚 son. The other is his step son and spends every other weekend with his natural father. The claimant applied for child benefit. In respect of the claimant바카라 사이트檚 step son, the Commissioners decided that he was not entitled to child benefit. The claimant appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (Ft-T). The Ft-T allowed the appeal and decided that the step son was one of the claimant바카라 사이트檚 family members. The Commissioners appealed to the Upper Tribunal. The issue in the appeal is how Regulation 883/2004 applies, and in particular, how it applies to a step child.
Held, allowing the appeal, that:
-
a step child was not a 바카라 사이트渕inor child바카라 사이트� within the definition of 바카라 사이트渕ember of the family바카라 사이트�. Head (2) in Article 1(i) has to be read in the context of Article 67. Head (2) provides that 바카라 사이트渢he spouse, minor children, and dependent children바카라 사이트hall be considered members of the family.바카라 사이트� That has to mean 바카라 사이트渢he claimant바카라 사이트檚 spouse, minor children, and dependent children.바카라 사이트� It cannot be read as 바카라 사이트渁ny minor children.바카라 사이트� In its proper, formal meaning, 바카라 사이트渃hild바카라 사이트� does not include step children unless the description was qualified in some way to make the position clear; (paragraph 11 and 12)
-
if a step child is the claimant바카라 사이트檚 child for the purposes of the claim, what about the position of the natural father? If he were to make a claim in respect of the child from another country, what would his position be? Would Head (2) mean that the child was not his child, despite his biological paternity? The Ft-T reasoning brought the step child within the claimant바카라 사이트檚 claim, but it did not exclude him from a claim by his natural father. There is no basis in interpretation that would allow that result; (paragraph 14)
-
treating a step child as the claimant바카라 사이트檚 child for the purposes of the claim would raise the possibility that he could be a member of two families in different States. In fact, he could be the member of more. Suppose his natural father has a spouse, his step mother, and she lives in a different State from both the step son and the natural father. That now makes him a member of three families in different States. As a child has two parents, this is always potential for the child to be a member of two families. But if step relationships are taken into account, the number of potential families multiplies and loses touch with reason; (paragraph 15)
-
including step children produces anomalous results. Why include a step child who is the natural child of the claimant바카라 사이트檚 spouse, but exclude a child who is not a natural child of either the claimant or their spouse but is being brought up by them? (paragraph 16)
The Judge set aside the Ft-T decision and re-made the decision to the effect of confirming the Commissioners바카라 사이트� decision.
Updates to this page
-
Decision selected for reporting as [2018] AACR 32
-
First published.