Mothers start court challenge in Leeds against two-child Universal Credit limit
They're challenging the two-child cap - arguing its unfair for parents who have conceived children as a result of sexual assault
Two women who conceived children when they were in violent and controlling relationships have been discriminated against by the workings of the two-child limit in universal credit (UC), a court has been told.
The mothers, identified only as LMN and EFG, launched a challenge to the rules around the so-called "rape clause" in UC claims at a court in Leeds on Tuesday.
The two-child cap for UC claims has exceptions to cover a limited number of circumstances, including if a child is conceived non-consensually.
But Leeds Administrative 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.
Karon Monaghan KC, representing the women, told a judge on Tuesday that both women were young and vulnerable when they began relationships in their teens and first became pregnant.
She explained that both were subject to regular violence and coercion, with one describing how she was choked to unconsciousness and raped multiple times.
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 home.
She 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 conceptions.
Ms Monaghan said EFG had two children who were conceived non-consensually and then another from a consensual relationship.
She was initially paid the child element of UC for this third child, but this was later rescinded, after a fourth child was born, saying it should not have been paid.
The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), which is the defendant in this case, told her she could only claim for two children, not four, due to the "ordering provisions".
EFG was told she had been overpaid for the third child.
Ms 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 said the state also has 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".
Ms Monaghan said: "It must ensure it doesn't take away benefits because the two children are the product of non-consensual sex".
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 budget.
Neither of the women, whose representation is being provided by Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG), were in court on Tuesday.