Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
CABINET HAS APPROVED priority drafting of new laws in response to a Supreme Court ruling that found a father of three was entitled to a widower’s pension, despite never having been married to or in a civil partnership with his late partner.
It is not expected to be passed into law before summer recess.
In January, the Supreme Court upheld a constitutional challenge of John O’Meara, who was denied access to the widower’s pension because he was not married to his partner of 20-years who died of cancer in 2021.
Chief Justice Donal O’Donnell told the court that the distinction in the legislation between a married and unmarried couple was “arbitrary and capricious”.
O’Meara said he was delighted with the ruling, noting it will help many other families in similar situations.
Reflecting on his decision to take legal action, he told reporters: “These things have to be done, things don’t change easily. You have to put the pressure on and put the work in.”
In its findings, the Supreme Court noted a legislative change was required owing to section 124 of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005 being inconsistent with the Constitution.
The Bill will broaden eligibility criteria for the Widow’s, Widower’s or Surviving Civil Partner’s Contributory Pension (WCP) to surviving cohabitants and rename it as the Bereaved Partner’s Contributory Pension (BPCP).
This morning, Minister for Social Protection Heather Humphreys obtained government approval for the priority drafting of the BPCP Bill and the publication of the General Scheme.
It will be referred to the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Social Protection, Community and Rural Development and the Islands for pre-legislative scrutiny “at an early date as a priority”.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Floodgates are wide open now for similar cases.
@Yvonne Melia: good. I mean why would you think a person who is in a relationship for 20 years with kids together etc shouldn’t get the widows pension the same as someone who is married 6 months with no kids would get it?!
@Yvonne Melia: Hopefully.
@Dramafree 2023: Because he’s not a widower.
How long does someone have to be a partner before they are eligible for widows/widowers pension.
Do they have to have children?
If a person had two dates could they be considered a partner if the person they had two sates with died?
@Teresa Ryan: you have to separate church and state here Teresa. In the eyes of God he is not a widow. In the very practical reality of life his long term partner of 20 years and mother of his children died. It is not 1980. This man is probably reading these comments, adding insult to his injury. How can you say he isn’t a widow and they were not a family. He is not only in my opinion but in the highest courts opinion a widow. Fair play to him for taking on the system and winning and I am so sorry for his loss.
@Dramafree 2023: He’s not a widower, plain and simple. To bring in the church, seriously! If he wanted to get married or civil partnership he had many many years prior to his partner getting sick to do so. He is not a widower and does not deserve a widowers pension. As usual our judiciary don’t know what they’re doing. Imagine the flood gates opening to anyone who dated someone could apply for a widow/widowers pension. Absolutely disgraceful.
@Jennifer Kennedy: What is disgraceful? Why are you so angry that a man whos partner of 20 years and mother of his children, is being seen as an equal. I can not understand your outrage. Are you threatened by this decision? I am married with kids, I choose to marry, this couple did not. It does not make them inferior beings or of lesser standing. The only place that does denounce such is the church, which is why I brought that in. Regarding the statement that he is not a widower and does not “deserve” the pension, I think you will find he has been deemed to be a widow and deserve the pension despite the fact they did not provide beef or salmon for 180 guests!
@Jennifer Kennedy:” In general, it is notable that social welfare provisions, unlike succession or taxation rules, do not tend to distinguish between married couples and cohabitants. In the case of s. 124, bereavement and the impact of the death of a partner, both emotional and financial, is not in any way different whether the survivor is married or not.”
@Brian: “insomuch as the section permits payment of WCP to be made to a surviving spouse with dependent children, but refuses any such payment to a surviving partner of a non-marital relationship with dependent children, the section makes a distinction that is arbitrary and capricious and which is not reasonably capable when objectively viewed in the light of the social function involved of supporting the precise classification challenged and therefore fails to hold them as parents, equal before the law”. Thats the ruling of The Supreme Court. Read it..and deal with it.
I think it’s terrible that the bereaved father had to wait years and bring his own legal challenge. We’re supposed to cherish all the children of the nation equally. Instead a load of begrudgers are online whining that someone contributed tax for decades and is getting some support in their loss as is his right. Good for him.
@Dramafree 2023: Who mentioned church and state besides you?
I never said they weren’t a family either.
Widower, noun, a man whose legal spouse had died, unless he remarries.
What I’m saying is he’s not a widower.
I don’t understand your difficulty with this.
@Teresa Ryan: Teresa he has been awarded the payment and deemed to be a widower. I am baffled firstly why you are so aggressively opposed to this and secondly by your lack of empathy but I suspect you believe you are right because that is what has been drilled into you forever. I can’t change that but I can say with great certainty this man is entitled to the widows pension as has been proven in the highest court in all the land. You need to get over it.
@Dramafree 2023: What has been drilled into me exactly? The man was never married and consequently, he can not be a widower. The court got this wrong. It could have stated that he was entitled to state support but no, the court made him out to be something he’s not.
Not the first time the Supreme Court has got it wrong.
If unmarried mothers have rights, then why not unmarried fathers: EQUALITY
@AnthonyK: His status as a father is not been questioned, just his status as a widower.
@AnthonyK: Because they don’t want to legislate. for it. In relation to “Guardianship”, and “Custody”, “Unmarried Fathers” are discriminated against, on two grounds; “Gender”, and “Marital Status”
@Teresa Ryan: That “question ” was dealt with by the Supreme Court. You can think what you like.. but they heard the facts of his case and ruled in his favour. How some people can’t accept this is beyond me. Do you believe something you just gave a cursory thought to outweighs the considered deliberation of the highest court in the land ? You’ve a very high opinion of your opinion all the same.
@Brian: It’s not the Supreme Court’s job to reinterpret the meaning of the word widower. The court could have decided that he was entitled to money from the state but not entitled to a widower’s pension.
@D. J. Casper.: they’re not discriminated on the grounds of gender. You’re all over this page with out of date information. If a woman uses a surrogate then SHE doesn’t have automatic guardianship of her genetic child. The only person with automatic guardianship is the person the baby came out of. Gender isn’t the reason. Evidence is.
The failed Family referendum was supposed to rectify this but sure they found a way to solve it after all. By the way what happened to the No Camp failing to capitalise on the failed referenda?! Seems like Teflon FFG can rule unscathed no matter what they do.
@9QRixo8H: No Camp – you mean the 80%. How patronising.
When the alternative is even worse …..
@9QRixo8H: What is the alternative? Vote into government a party that oversaw kangaroo courts where victims of sexual abuse were involved. Name calling and mud slinging in social media didn’t do much in the Local and European elections.
@Thomas Sheridan: well if the No Camp parties couldn’t gain seats out of this 80% then there’s no hope. Made no dent in the support of FFG despite them losing their referenda.
Weren’t FFG in govt over 80 years or so when mass religious sexual abuse occurred? Cognitive dissonance?
@Vincent Alexander: As opposed to Parties that have also done those same things, yeah??? Or worse, facilitated that abuse continuing, with someone else, yeah??? But you have a point, I mean it isn’t like we’ve seen “Fianna Fáil”, or “Fine Gael” involved in any “Name Calling”, or “Mud Slinging”, now is it???
Reminds me of the Divorce Referendum. Defeated by the all-knowing Irish public on the grounds that it would oven the flood gates and half the country would end up getting divorced. What was the slogan, Hello Divorce , Goodbye Daddy.
However, those who were in power knew there was a huge problem of separated people and 2nd families.
A second referendum was quickly organised and passed.
How anybody can’t recognise that a couple who live together for 20years , have 3 children, raise them together are not a family, is beyond me.
I may be wrong , but I believe the recent referendum failed because of the interpretation of the word “Mother” , but the problem of the interpretation of the word “family” still has to be solved.
@Brian Forrester: And what if they had 1 child and didn’t live together?
Are they still a family?
Or live together and have no children?
Or a brother & sister living together.
Or two brothers / two sisters.
@Thomas Sheridan: The article is about a man and a woman with 3 children living together. While living together, the woman died of cancer. Try and keep to the issue, please.
@Brian Forrester: Their status as a family is not under question but his status as a widower should be.
@Brian Forrester: Remember, there were two different Votes; the Family one, and the Care one. BOTH would have just acknowledged what already exists/happens. The Care one was rejected, because of this asinine suggestion/idea that we were “removing Mothers, from the Constitution”, when what we were doing was acknowledging that it isn’t only Women that are providing the Care; there are some Fathers, Grandparents, Aunts, and so on providing that Care, and the Family one was rejected, because of that whole “Family Reunification” thing.
@D. J. Casper.: No.
The Care referendum was rejected because the state tried to pull a fat one. The state was attempting to get out of its obligations of care, and place the burden onto the family.
@ItWasLikeThatWhenIGotHere: Those obligations aren’t there, to begin with. Interestingly enough, there’s a Case that the Court is dealing with, on this very issue. It’ll be interesting to see what the Court says. The way that I see it, based on the Article’s wording, I can’t see the Court saying that there’s “an iron clad obligation”, but that everything hasn’t been done, to support her.
@D. J. Casper.: @D. J. Casper.: That’d be why the State tried to remove that provision from the constitution then.
That non-existent provision, according to you.
As a follow on… Through legislation, women who become pregnant should be forced to put father’s name on birth certificate, unless pregnant due to some illegal action (rape, incest, etc). And men who impregnate women should be forced to pay child support. The state and public should not be obliged to take responsibility of the unwed mother and child.
@Seriously Really: Why?
To satisfy some need of yours to control what others do?
@Seriously Really: Makes me wonder if there would be Women that would say that they were raped, just to avoid having to add the Father’s Name. And what about a scenario where a Woman just says that someone is the Father, when they aren’t? The way I see it, “Mandatory D. N. A. Testing” is where you start this.
@Seriously Really: For that to work, paternity testing at birth would have to be mandatory.
@N J: A lot of male partners might just find out they are not fathers.
@Seriously Really: next you’ll be saying we should lock them up in laundries.
@Seriously Really: What’s all this need of yours to force other people to go through needless grief? Talk about kicking someone else’s child while they’re down and in need of a bit of help. Didn’t you notice that contributory pensions require people to contribute during their working years? Don’t you think that the late parents would much rather be alive? Quit trying to torment parents who are doing their best for children.
@D. J. Casper.: more misinformation. Clearly you have no kids or no clue. Women can’t add a man’s name. If a man’s name isn’t on a birth cert it’s because he didn’t register it himself. That’s how it works. Women don’t get to pick a random millionaire and put his name down as daddy.
@Seriously Really: women can’t stop a man’s name from going on a birth cert unless she can prove he’s not the father. Women also can’t add a man’s name to a birth cert. He has to do that himself. You need to update your info
Brilliant news, fairplay to him.This will change a lot of people’s lives.
@Maria Doyle: indeed it will and it will also ensure the surviving partner never marries in the future either as they would lose 12,300 euros a year.
@Teresa Ryan: DSocial Welfare approach has always been to treat a co-habiting couple as a married couple in terms of qualification for the various payments.
A good and fair decision. Whats good for the Gander is good for the Goose.
I think that the real question here is if any Women that weren’t married received the Payment, and if so, then why Men would be “ineligible”.
@D. J. Casper.: no the real question is can unmarried people be “widowed”.
Did anyone ask the geese how they identify, maybe some identify as orangutans!
The ffg entitled chancers will change the laws to make sure there enablers keep their money and expenses of every citizen
have your say