Child Disability Payment decision making guide
Guidance on specific situations
Doubts about the suitability of the person acting on behalf of the child
In a small number of cases, case managers may receive information that suggests a person is no longer suitable to act on the child's behalf.
This may happen if:
- the child is no longer in the care of that person
- that person has been deprived of their legal authority to act on the child's behalf the child is at risk of financial abuse.
Financial abuse includes (1 DACYP Regs, reg. 26A(4)):
- having money or other property stolen
- being defrauded
- being put under pressure in relation to money or other property
- having money or other property misused
In these circumstances, urgent enquiries should be made to establish if it is appropriate to continue to allow a person to act on behalf of a child. This should also include identifying as a matter of priority an alternative person who could act on the child's behalf.
Where the case manager decides it is not appropriate to allow a person to continue to act, an alternative person should be identified to act on the child's behalf. The alternative person could be either of the following:
- a person with legal authority to act on behalf of the child who is practicably able to act on the child's behalf
- a person without legal authority to act on behalf of the child who can be appointed to act on the child's behalf. See Part 5.1 of the Client Representative Guidelines.
Where CDP is payable in respect of a child, case managers may, where they consider it appropriate, make payment to another person to be used for the benefit of the chiId (1 COP Regs, Reg. 22(1)). The case manager may stop making payments to that person if, for any reason, they consider it no longer appropriate to do so.
Case managers should make effort to identify an alternative person to pay. They should consider suspending CDP if it is not possible to identify an alternative person (DACYP / egs, reg. 26A(3)). This should be done before the next payment of CDP is due to be made.
Natasha is 10 years old and is entitled to CDP after her parent submitted an application on her behalf. 6 months later, a social worker reports to Social Security Scotland that Natasha's parent has not had care of Natasha, as she was placed in foster care 3 months ago. Natasha's parent has not been allowed to have any contact with her. The social worker reports that Natasha's parent has kept payments of CDP for her own use.
A case manager considers the information provided by the social worker and decides to contact Natasha's parent. Despite calling Natasha's parent several times and writing to the parent, no response has been received. The case manager decides that it may be more appropriate to make arrangements to pay Natasha's foster carer rather than suspend payment, as the next payment of CDP is not due for another three weeks.
Douglas is 8 years old and has been in receipt of CDP for 2 years. His father manages his assistance on his behalf, and there were no questions regarding his father's parental rights and responsibilities at time of application.
Douglas's mother contacts Social Security Scotland to advise she and Douglas do not live with the father any longer, and the father has now moved to Norway. She reports the relationship has broken down and she has no contact with the father, so cannot provide an address, but feels she would be most appropriate to receive Douglas's award on his behalf.
The case manager considers the information provided and received confirmation from a Housing Support Worker that Douglas does now live with the mother alone. The case manager discusses this with the Fraud team, who confirm this is not an issue regarding Douglas's entitlement and does not require a criminal standard investigation as Douglas himself is not committing fraud.
The case manager considers whether in this case it is appropriate to suspend payments or to pay the mother, while awaiting confirmation of the father's change in address. Suspending payments can only be done if there is no-one else suitable to pay the award to, and in this case, the case manager knows that the mother is practicably able to act on behalf of Douglas and has confirmation she is best placed to act in his best interests. The case manager decides that, on the balance of probabilities, Douglas is more likely to benefit from his mother receiving his CDP award than his father. The case manager makes a plan to attempt to contact the father to confirm his change in circumstances, while arranging for the next payment to be paid to the mother, to avoid any overpayment to the father.
Fatima is 6 years old and receives a determination that she is entitled to CDP in December. Fatima’s mother is managing her CDP on her behalf.
In July, Social Security Scotland receive a call from the local authority to advise that Fatima is now in their care and will have no contact with her mother. The local authority are in the process of arranging a foster care placement for Fatima.
The case manager advises that the foster carer should contact Social Security Scotland as soon as a placement has been arranged.
Fatima’s next payment of Child Disability Payment is due imminently. The case manager gives regards to the financial circumstances of the child and suspends payment in order to protect her from a risk of financial abuse.
There is a disagreement about having an appointee for the child
Social Security Scotland must consider whether to end an appointment if requested to do so by any of the following people:
- the child
- persons with legal authority to act on behalf of the child
- anyone who appears to Social Security Scotland to have an interest in the welfare or financial affairs of the child.
For more information about requests to end an appointment and how to handle these, see Part 5.1 of the Client Representative Guidelines.
If a second person with legal authority to act on behalf of the child applies for a child who has an existing award of CDP
A second parent or person with legal authority may not know if the child has an existing award of CDP in place as they are allowed to exercise their legal rights independently of anyone else with respect to the child.
In the circumstance of a second person applying for CDP with respect to an already eligible child, the application should be rejected as the child is already eligible for CDP and cannot be eligible for CDP twice. The rejection reason should include that there is a live award already in place for the child.
If, once an application has been rejected, a parent complains to Social Security Scotland that they should be the person acting on behalf of the child, a dispute resolution process should be followed to make a decision on who should manage the award on behalf of the child.
If a second person with legal authority to act on behalf of the child applies for a child who already has an application for CDP being processed
A second parent or person with legal authority may not know that an application for CDP has already been submitted for the child as they are allowed to exercise their legal rights independently of anyone else with respect of the child.
If a second application has been received for a child before a determination has been made on the first
application, the second application should either be withdrawn by the applicant or rejected.
The case manager should follow the operational guidance: Applicant submits a second Child Disability Payment application | Social Security Scotland.
When an individual applying for CDP on behalf of a child dies after an application is submitted and before a determination is made
When Social Security Scotland are made aware that the person applying for CDP on behalf of a child has died, the case manager must make enquiries into who is best placed to act on behalf of the child.
This may involve contacting:
- the person that notified Social Security Scotland of the death
- the deceased's next of kin or their partner, if appropriate
- the local authority to establish who is now the main carer for the child
This list is not exhaustive.
The case manager should satisfy themselves on the balance of probabilities that the person identified to act on behalf of the child has legal authority to do so.
As well as having the legal authority to act on behalf of the child, the person identified will need to be practicably able and willing to act for the child.
If it is found that either:
- there is no person that has legal authority to act on behalf of the child
- the person that has legal authority is not practicably able and willing to act for the child
The case manager can consider appointing someone to act on behalf of the child.
Once a person has been identified that is able to act on behalf of the child the case manager should follow the change in child responsibility operational guidance.
10-year-old Jonah's mother submits an application online for CDP on his behalf on 9 July. On 18 August Social Security Scotland Bereavement team receives a call from Jonah's father to report the death of his wife, Jonah's mother. The Bereavement team confirm the death and during the call Jonah's Father states that he is now solely responsible for Jonah.
Before the application can be considered further, the Case Manager must now establish who is best placed to act on Jonah's behalf. The Case Manager contacts Jonah's Father who confirms that he has parental rights and responsibilities, lives with and cares for Jonah and wishes to act on his behalf.
Jonah’s birth certificate was previously supplied as supporting information when the Child Disability Payment application was submitted on 9 July. The Case Manager verifies that Jonah’s father is named on the birth certificate and is satisfied that he has legal authority to act on behalf of the child and is practicabIy able to manage the child's assistance. The Case Manager determines that Jonah's father is the appropriate person to take over Jonah's application for Child Disability Payment.
14-year-old Kayla's Grandmother submits an online application for CDP on her behalf on 19 April. On 19 July, a Client Adviser continues to process the application and notices that a change of circumstances task is held on the case. This confirms the death of Kayla's Grandmother and has been verified by the Social Security Scotland Bereavement team.
A court order was provided with the application as supporting information which confirmed that her Grandmother was granted Legal Guardianship and parental rights due to Kayla's parents dying when she was younger. Since her grandmothers death, no one has approached Social Security Scotland to take over Kayla's Child Disability Payment application.
The case manager must now investigate if there is another individual with legal authority who is practicably able to act on behalf of Kayla.
The Case Manager makes contact with the Local Authority to gather insight on Kayla's current living arrangements and establish who is now the main carer for Kayla. Kayla's Social Worker confirms that currently there is no one else who has legal authority to act on behalf of Kayla. Kayla has been placed in the care of her Aunt, who it is hoped she will be able to live with long term.
As there is no one who has legal authority to act on behalf of Kayla, the Case Manager must now consider appointing another person to act on behalf of Kayla. In line with the Client Representative Guidelines, the Case Manager seeks the views of the Social Worker, Kayla's Aunt and Kayla.
Kayla's Aunt is made aware that Kayla's Grandmother submitted an application for Child Disability Payment prior to her death and enquiries are now being made as to whether the application should continue and if it should, if there is a suitable person to act on Kayla's behalf. She confirms that she is practicably able to act on Kayla's behalf and wishes to continue with the application if Social Security Scotland would consider appointing her to do so.