Post by Banker on Feb 27, 2012 6:38:41 GMT 7
A FATHER who cares for his severely disabled son will be stripped of his carer payment and forced to go on the unemployment benefit because of a clash between his Family Court orders and social security law.
The former long-distance truck driver gave up his job to look after his son, who has cerebral palsy. But he will be $111 a week worse off, and will also lose the annual $600 carer supplement, after Centrelink notified him of the pending disqualification.
Under the Family Court order, the father has the predominant care of his son for all but four days a fortnight when the boy goes to his mother, as well as for half the school holidays. But this division of care, which the father happily accepts, disqualifies him from receiving the Carer Payment.
Advertisement: Story continues below
A prerequisite for the payment is that a carer provides ''constant care'' and has only one day of respite a week and generally 63 days respite a year. The family court order means the father has on average two days respite a week.
Instead of receiving the carer payment and supplement, worth $374 a week, he will get the Newstart Allowance (dependent child rate) of $263.
The father, who cannot be named, said his 17-year-old son could not walk, cut his food or toilet himself and had to be turned in bed at night and lifted from bed with a hoist.
''It's a full-time job looking after [my son],'' he said. ''But I love looking after him and I wouldn't stop it for the world.''
However, he could not make ends meet on the Newstart Allowance due to the cost of his mortgage and his son's care. If he looked for work, he would be neglecting his son's care. ''Why hasn't provision been made by the law for situations where care of a severely disabled child is split between parents under a court order?'' he said.
The father lost an appeal to the Social Security Appeals Tribunal this month because he did not meet the ''constant care'' requirement of the Social Security Act. The tribunal said it was bound to apply the law, ''however unfair or unjust it may appear'', and it was up to federal Parliament to change the law.
It accepted the father's inability to meet the care requirement was ''due entirely to reasons outside his control'' and said the ''burden of … care leaves a legacy of exhaustion that makes it not possible for him to take any employment, full-time, part-time or casual at any time during the year''.
Maree O'Halloran, the director of the Welfare Rights Centre, said the case highlighted how unfair, inflexible and illogical some social security rules were. The ''constant care'' provisions were too stringent, not just for separated couples but all carers.
Read more: www.smh.com.au/national/court-forces-carer-father-on-dole-20120226-1twga.html#ixzz1nXBDhAcB
The former long-distance truck driver gave up his job to look after his son, who has cerebral palsy. But he will be $111 a week worse off, and will also lose the annual $600 carer supplement, after Centrelink notified him of the pending disqualification.
Under the Family Court order, the father has the predominant care of his son for all but four days a fortnight when the boy goes to his mother, as well as for half the school holidays. But this division of care, which the father happily accepts, disqualifies him from receiving the Carer Payment.
Advertisement: Story continues below
A prerequisite for the payment is that a carer provides ''constant care'' and has only one day of respite a week and generally 63 days respite a year. The family court order means the father has on average two days respite a week.
Instead of receiving the carer payment and supplement, worth $374 a week, he will get the Newstart Allowance (dependent child rate) of $263.
The father, who cannot be named, said his 17-year-old son could not walk, cut his food or toilet himself and had to be turned in bed at night and lifted from bed with a hoist.
''It's a full-time job looking after [my son],'' he said. ''But I love looking after him and I wouldn't stop it for the world.''
However, he could not make ends meet on the Newstart Allowance due to the cost of his mortgage and his son's care. If he looked for work, he would be neglecting his son's care. ''Why hasn't provision been made by the law for situations where care of a severely disabled child is split between parents under a court order?'' he said.
The father lost an appeal to the Social Security Appeals Tribunal this month because he did not meet the ''constant care'' requirement of the Social Security Act. The tribunal said it was bound to apply the law, ''however unfair or unjust it may appear'', and it was up to federal Parliament to change the law.
It accepted the father's inability to meet the care requirement was ''due entirely to reasons outside his control'' and said the ''burden of … care leaves a legacy of exhaustion that makes it not possible for him to take any employment, full-time, part-time or casual at any time during the year''.
Maree O'Halloran, the director of the Welfare Rights Centre, said the case highlighted how unfair, inflexible and illogical some social security rules were. The ''constant care'' provisions were too stringent, not just for separated couples but all carers.
Read more: www.smh.com.au/national/court-forces-carer-father-on-dole-20120226-1twga.html#ixzz1nXBDhAcB