Pursuing child’s father for maintenance

Roach v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions CA TLR 5 January

Where a mother claiming for income support under the Child Support Act 1991 indicated that she did not wish the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to pursue the child’s father for maintenance on the ground that there would be a realistic possibility of undue distress, and, following interview, the Secretary of State determined to reduce her benefit under s46, an objective judgment had to be made by him as to whether the foreseeable distress was unjustified or unreasonable in the context of the personal, subjective characteristics of the claimant or child. In upholding the decision of the CSA tribunal to reduce the benefit payable to the mother, the court said that the question of undue distress under s46(3) (as substituted by s19 of the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000) should not be approached on a purely subjective basis: if it were, the word ‘undue’ would have no real meaning.