Latest news with #rapeclause
BBC News
3 days ago
- General
- BBC News
Mothers lose two-child benefit cap 'rape clause' case
Two women who conceived their eldest children when they were in abusive relationships have lost a legal challenge to rules around the so-called "rape clause" to the two-child benefit non-consensual conception exception allows universal credit (UC) recipients to claim benefits for more than two children - but only if the third or subsequent children were conceived mothers brought legal action against the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), saying the rules breached their human rights.A DWP spokesperson said victims of rape and coercion should be treated with "dignity and respect" but the court decision was about how the policy was being implemented. The policy leaves some women unable to use the exception if their first two children are conceived in rape but they have further children in consensual relationships.A previous hearing at Leeds Administrative Court heard both women were young and vulnerable when they began relationships in their teens and first became Monaghan KC, representing the women, said both were subject to regular violence and first woman conceived her two eldest children through rape and was told she could not claim the benefit for her third and fourth children, both of whom were conceived consensually in a later long-term was initially paid the child element of UC for the third child, but this was later cancelled, after the fourth child was second woman, a mother of six, was subjected to domestic abuse and violent and coercive behaviour by former partners with whom she had Monaghan said she had older children in care and two living with her, but then one of the older children returned to her was refused an exception to the two-child limit under these "ordering provisions".The Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG), which provided the women's legal representation, said that while the first woman was eventually granted an exception for her youngest child, she went for years said this amounted to thousands of pounds of support which will not be backdated. Mrs Justice Collins Rice said the two women were survivors of "appalling relationship abuse" which involved "sustained physical, sexual and psychological violence".But she also said their argument is part of the "intensely controversial" political debate about the two-child benefit said the issue must be resolved in the "political arena" and "the forum of public opinion". Ms Collins Rice concluded: "It is also a question with potential resonances in family law more generally... it is a political law reform question."Responding to the judgment, the first woman said the decision was "disappointing" but that she would "keep going and fight this to the end"."All of my choices were taken away from me for years by my abuser before I fled," she said."I've fought hard to get on with my life for me and my kids."Claire Hall, the CPAG solicitor who represented the women, said the organisation would look to appeal the said that "in the meantime all eyes are on the government which has the chance to do the right thing and abolish the inhumane two-child limit in the autumn child poverty strategy".The DWP spokesperson said: "Violence against woman and girls is a national emergency - and our mission is to halve it within a decade."This policy will be considered along with all other levers including social security reform by the Child Poverty Taskforce and the Child Poverty Strategy will be published in the autumn." Listen to highlights from West Yorkshire on BBC Sounds, catch up with the latest episode of Look North.
The Guardian
4 days ago
- The Guardian
Women who conceived in abusive relationships lose legal challenge over benefits ‘rape clause'
Two women who conceived their eldest children while they were in violent and controlling relationships have lost a legal challenge to the rules around the two-child benefit cap. A high court judge said the accounts of the abuse the women faced when they were 'vulnerable girls barely out of childhood' were 'chilling'. But in a judgment delivered on Friday, Justice Collins Rice said it was for politicians to settle the matter, not the courts. The women, and campaigners who support them, said they were disappointed but would fight on to have universal credit rules changed. The two mothers, identified only as LMN and EFG, launched a challenge to the rules around the so-called rape clause in universal credit claims at a court in Leeds in June. The two-child cap for universal credit claims has exceptions to cover a limited number of circumstances, including if a child is conceived nonconsensually. But the court heard how this only applies to third or subsequent children, leaving some women unable to utilise this exception if, for example, their first two children are conceived after rape but they have further children in consensual relationships. The women, whose claim was against the Department for Work and Pensions. were supported by the Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG), which describes the benefit rules as 'inhumane'. The judge said the two women endured abusive relationships that included rape. 'They are chilling accounts of appalling domestic abuse,' she said. 'Vulnerable girls barely out of childhood themselves caught in toxic relationships, or repeating cycles of such relationships, in which their personal, reproductive and family autonomy is acutely compromised by the physical, sexual and emotional violence of controlling perpetrators.' She said the women were 'among the most harmed and vulnerable' members of society while as mothers they were 'making an important and valuable' contribution to it. The judge said CPAG had brought a legal challenge to the two-child cap before. 'That made its way to the supreme court, which, in 2021, firmly returned the matter to the political realm.' She said she had reached the same place as the supreme court did before, saying it was 'a policy question dealing in social, economic, moral and ethical subject matter' and a 'political law-reform question'. The judge added: 'The law does not compel a government, or a parliament, to provide the answer the claimants seek. This claim is dismissed accordingly.' In a statement after the ruling, the mother named EFG said: 'All of my choices were taken away from me for years by my abuser before I fled. I've fought hard to get on with my life for me and my kids. But the two-child limit makes it more difficult. 'The government says that the exceptions are to protect people who – like me – didn't have a choice about the number of kids in their family, but the rape clause doesn't do that. The rules need to change to protect families like mine. The result today is disappointing but I will keep going and fight this to the end.' The other mother, LMN, said: 'I want to keep going with the case as I feel like it's against my human rights. When my oldest came back to live with me from care and before I got the exception for my youngest, we had to survive on less money. That stopped me doing things with the children – I never planned on having the children but that's not their fault.' Claire Hall, a solicitor at CPAG who represented the women, said they would look at appealing against the decision, but in the meantime, 'all eyes are on the government which has the chance to do the right thing and abolish the inhumane two-child limit in the autumn child poverty strategy'. Hall added: 'Our clients have provided their children with safe and loving home environments but the rules have failed to protect them and their children from the impacts of the two-child limit.'
BBC News
18-06-2025
- Politics
- BBC News
Mothers in legal contest over two-child benefit cap 'rape clause'
Two women who had children when they were in violent and controlling relationships are claiming they were unfairly denied child mothers, identified only as LMN and EFG, launched a challenge to the universal credit two-child cap at Leeds Administrative Court on Tuesday and the so-called "rape clause".The exception allows for financial support for a child conceived non-consensually if that child is the third or subsequent child, but does not apply to further children if a mother's first two children were conceived after Monaghan KC, representing the women, said the rule was "irrational" and breached the women's right not to be discriminated against. She told the court that both women were young and vulnerable when they began relationships in their teens and first became explained that they were subjected to regular violence and coercion, with one describing how she was choked to unconsciousness and raped multiple times. 'Anomaly in the rules' Ms Monaghan explained how LMN had older children in care and two living with her, but then one of the older children returned to her then had three children living in her home, but she was refused an exception to the two-child limit under these "ordering provisions" relating to non-consensual Monaghan said EFG had two children who were conceived non-consensually and then another from a consensual was initially paid the child element of universal credit for this third child, but this was later rescinded, after a fourth child was Monaghan told the judge, Mrs Justice Collins Rice, the state had an obligation under Article 3, 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".The barrister said that, if this anomaly in the rules was rectified, "we are talking about a drop in an ocean", in the face of a £300 billion-plus national benefits of the women, whose representation is being provided by Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG), were in court on Tuesday. Galina Ward KC, for the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), told the court that the exceptions to the two-child cap, which also include circumstances around kinship care and multiple births, were intended to "kick-in" when women are not able to make a choice about having a said this case was "fundamentally different" to one which was the subject of a 2018 High Court ruling that similar exception rules relating to children in kinship care arrangements were said the DWP also did not accept that women who have non-consensually conceived children and then choose to have another child "are making a fundamentally different choice" to women whose children are consensually case continues on. Listen to highlights from South Yorkshire on BBC Sounds, catch up with the latest episode of Look North
The Guardian
17-06-2025
- The Guardian
UK mothers with children from abusive relationships discriminated against by benefits system, court told
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 entitled to it. 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 only be identified as LMN and EFG, said the pair had conceived their children when they were in their teens and vulnerable. Monaghan said that both women were regularly subjected to violence and coercion during their respective relationships, with one saying that 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 are irrational and breach 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, while also claiming that the money these women could receive is only 'a drop in an ocean' of the £300bn-plus national benefits budget. The hearing, which neither woman attended in person, is due to continue tomorrow.
