Latest news with #MsX
Irish Times
03-08-2025
- Politics
- Irish Times
State secures Supreme Court appeal against citizenship ruling for children of same-sex couples
The State has secured a Supreme Court appeal against a High Court ruling that found failings in how Irish citizenship-by-descent laws treat children born to same-sex parents living abroad. Two separate cases determined by the High Court earlier this year involved children born abroad to two sets of legal mothers following donor-assisted human reproduction (DAHR). In the case of one Irish mother living in Australia, referred to as 'Ms X', her children, on whose birth certificates she is named, were refused passports because she was not their gestational mother, biological father or adoptive parent. Therefore, the Minister for Foreign Affairs found she did not meet the definition of 'parent' under section 7 of the 1956 Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act, from which citizenship by descent can be derived. READ MORE The High Court declared that she, her children and her family were treated unequally because the Government failed to provide a way for the boys to achieve Irish citizenship. In the other case, a passport was refused for a Spanish-born child, despite the Irish citizen, 'Ms Y', being the genetic mother but not the gestational mother, having donated her egg to her partner. The High Court found the Minister erred in interpreting section 7 as excluding Ms Y as the child's parent. It also held that Irish law does not afford a properly tailored means of vindicating the rights of a child born abroad to a non-genetic, non-gestational Irish citizen mother. An application made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Attorney General and Ireland seeking to appeal the decisions argued the High Court failed to properly determine the nature and extent of the State's equality obligations. The State parties said there is a need for certainty about who qualifies as a parent or mother. The answer to this question will affect the development of the law in an area of 'particular sensitivity', they said. 'Such determination will have significant implications for, and effects on, the statutory arrangements which are in place, and which will be put in place, to regulate DAHR.' The State parties said the issue is a 'matter of general public importance which will affect a considerable number of people in regard to an important aspect of their lives'. They contended an appeal brings 'no prejudice' to the families and would benefit them 'as it will lead more quickly to a final and conclusive determination of the issues'. In the case of 'Ms Y', in particular, the State said the High Court's interpretation of the section 7 definition of a parent is 'novel and without precedent and is contrary to the vast majority, if not all, prior precedent'. 'It introduces a considerable degree of uncertainty into the law in regard to DAHR, in particular, as to what are the exact circumstances when a genetic mother can qualify as a parent; and as to whether, for the purposes of citizenship by descent, a child can have more than one mother or have more than two parents,' it said. Neither family opposed the State's appeal applications. They both recognised the importance of clarifying the law, saying it is in the public interest to gain certainty as to who qualifies as a 'parent' under citizenship laws. The families have been permitted to cross-appeal claiming, among other points, the High Court was wrong to find that a non-genetic, non-gestational legal parent does not meet the section 7 definition of a parent. Speaking to The Irish Times earlier this year, Ms X said she was 'extremely disappointed' her homeland would not recognise her as a parent to her two sons. 'To be told you are not a parent of your own child is a very hard thing to have to listen to,' she said.
Irish Times
04-06-2025
- Business
- Irish Times
Scientist with ‘debilitating' condition alleges discrimination by not being allowed work from home
A scientist living with 'debilitating' endometriosis has accused international medical devices firm Abbott of discriminating against her by refusing to let her work from home to ease a daily commute of nearly four hours. The worker, who has over a decade of industry experience and advanced postgraduate qualifications, told the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) on Tuesday she was given ten minutes to pick up her things and get off an Abbott site last autumn after being told she failed her probation. She said she was reduced to 'crying all the way back' in a colleague's arms during the drive home. Abbott Ireland Ltd is denying complaints of disability discrimination and discriminatory dismissal under the Employment Equality Act 1998 by the worker, Ms X, who has been afforded anonymity by the WRC. READ MORE Ms X was hired by Abbott in spring 2024 and spent just short of six months working in an office at an Abbott site in a county town analysing test data, but was deemed to have failed her probation and was let go that autumn, the tribunal heard. The company's representative, Fiona Egan of the Irish Business and Employers' Confederation (Ibec), submitted that Ms X failed her probation for 'conduct and performance' following a number of instances of lateness and uncertified absences from work. It had 'nothing to do with her condition', she said. Shaun Boylan BL, appearing for Ms X instructed by Sean Ormonde & Co Solicitors, said the firm's policy of refusing to allow probationary employees to work from home was 'implicitly discriminatory' against his client, as it put accommodations for her disability 'on hold for six months'. Ms X said she had been diagnosed with stage two endometriosis in 2022, a condition affecting the female reproductive organs. She said it causes her 'debilitating pain', accompanied by 'nausea, fainting and dizziness' which was at its worst during the 7-8 days of her period and required prescription-only codeine and opiate painkillers to manage. The daily drive from Ms X's home to the Abbott site was 'coming up on a four-hour commute to work every day', adjudication officer Brian Dolan remarked during the hearing on Tuesday. Ms X said she thought at first she should 'just endure' the commute. Her evidence was that she was 'promised in the interview that it would be a hybrid role' and that she had turned down roles elsewhere with a five-day-a-week on-site commitment because of that. Ms X said her immediate team consisted of six or seven colleagues, but 'nobody' was in office five days a week, and 'most' were working from home. On a date six weeks after she started, a 'very sudden' departmentwide meeting was called, at which she said a senior manager declared 'there would be no more work from home possible' at the site, barring the 'possibility' of one day a week. Ms X said she was in 'excruciating pain' that day and found the message 'difficult to take'. She told the commission she went straight to her team leader 'in visible distress, with tears in my eyes' and proceeded to tell him she had endometriosis. She said her team leader was 'empathetic' and 'supportive' at that stage and gave her an assurance that a 'one week in, one week out' work from home arrangement would be possible – but only once her probation was finished. Making it in for an on-site team meeting at 9.30am meant setting out from home at 6.30am or 6.45am, Ms X said. Over seven weeks before a probationary caution letter being issued in her final weeks on the job, Ms X was late eight times and absent without a medical cert on three occasions, leading to an occupational health referral. She said a senior manager later told her: 'The company cannot offer more than one day work from home past your probation,' and urged her to find somewhere to live closer to the site. The probation review continued into the following month, and concluded when her team leader called her into a conference room and read out a letter stating that her employment was being terminated, she said. The only reason stated was: 'Your standard of performance has not met company expectations.' 'I asked why. [My team leader] said: 'Everything is in the letter,'' Ms X said. After saying she could not continue with the meeting a company HR officer told her an outstanding pay matter could be handled by email and gave her 'ten minutes to leave, to grab [my] stuff and leave the premises'. 'Everyone was crying in the car,' she said. 'I hugged my colleague, in the car, and kept crying all the way back to Dublin,' she added. The adjudicator, Mr Dolan, told Ms X he had the power to order her reinstatement as a remedy under the equality legislation if she was successful in the case. Ms X replied: 'I'd probably never come back to Abbott.' The case has been adjourned to a later date, when three company witnesses, including Ms X's team leader and the senior manager are due to give evidence.
Yahoo
29-05-2025
- General
- Yahoo
SEND assessment delay 'prolonged injustice' for mum
"Significant delays" by a council in assessing a child's special educational needs caused his mother "prolonged injustice", a government watchdog has ruled. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman ordered Slough Borough Council to pay her £1,000 for delays and lack of communication. Its report said the council's faults had caused her "significant distress and frustration". The council said it acknowledged the findings of the report and had complied with all of its recommendations. The mother, named as Ms X in the ombudsman's report, asked the council to update her son B's education health and care plan (EHCP) in March 2024. This is a legal document reviewed annually that sets out what a council has to do to meet a child's special educational needs. She wanted the council to update B's EHCP with information from a private occupational therapist's assessment she had sourced, and asked if it could reimburse her for the cost. Ms X then complained "shortly after" about the time the council had taken to update B's EHCP after a review in October 2023, and asked for a personal budget to pay for his occupational therapy. The council replied that B's annual review would take place in April, that she could discuss a personal budget then, and that it might need to take 14 weeks to reassess his needs. The council also said it had "not yet decided" whether to reimburse Ms X for the private occupational therapist's assessment. B's annual review took place in April and the council wrote to Ms X in June saying it had prepared an amended plan, that it would reimburse her for the occupational therapist's assessment and reassess B's needs. In response to her complaint, Slough Borough Council said it would consider her request for a personal budget. It accepted there had been delays in updating B's plan and securing a decision around the private occupational therapist funding. When the council did issue an updated ECHP in September 2024 the reassessment had still not taken place – and was ongoing at the time of the ombudsman's decision in March this year. The council 'said waiting for the outcome of the private OT's review, had delayed this consideration'. The ombudsman ruled this delay was "especially severe" and the the council should pay Ms X £750. In addition, the ombudsman said there was a "lack of communication! from the council in explaining its decision whether to award Ms X a personal budget, and that there was a delay in deciding whether to reimburse her for the private assessment. It said the council should pay Ms X a further £250 for these. The council said: "We are conscious of historic failings and delays within parts of our SEND service and recognise the impact this has had on some families. "In response, we have taken clear steps to strengthen the service — including increasing staffing capacity, improving oversight, and ensuring Education, Health, and Care (EHC) needs assessments are completed in a more timely and consistent way." It added: "We remain committed to improving outcomes for children and young people with SEND and to working closely with families to provide the support they need." You can follow BBC Berkshire on Facebook, X (Twitter), or Instagram. Authority to pay £11,750 over special needs case Council to pay £6,500 after failing autistic child SEND delay 'horrible' for boy, 11 Mother awarded £9,400 over education battle for son Slough Borough Council Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman
BBC News
29-05-2025
- General
- BBC News
Slough Borough Council SEND assessment delays criticised in report
"Significant delays" by a council in assessing a child's special educational needs caused his mother "prolonged injustice", a government watchdog has Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman ordered the Slough Borough Council to pay her £1,000 for delays and lack of report said the council's faults had caused her "significant distress and frustration".The BBC has approached the council for comment. The mother, named as Ms X in the ombudsman's report, asked the council to update her son B's education health and care plan (EHCP) in March is a legal document reviewed annually that sets out what a council has to do to meet a child's special educational wanted the council to update B's EHCP with information from a private occupational therapist's assessment she had sourced, and asked if it could reimburse her for the X then complained "shortly after" about the time the council had taken to update B's EHCP after a review in October 2023, and asked for a personal budget to pay for his occupational therapy. 'Especially severe' The council replied that B's annual review would take place in April, that she could discuss a personal budget then, and that it might need to take 14 weeks to reassess his council also said it had "not yet decided" whether to reimburse Ms X for the private occupational therapist's assessment.B's annual review took place in April and the council wrote to Ms X in June saying it had prepared an amended plan, that it would reimburse her for the occupational therapist's assessment and reassess B's response to her complaint, Slough Borough Council said it would consider her request for a personal accepted there had been delays in updating B's plan and securing a decision around the private occupational therapist the council did issue an updated ECHP in September 2024 the reassessment had still not taken place – and was ongoing at the time of the ombudsman's decision in March this council 'said waiting for the outcome of the private OT's review, had delayed this consideration'.The ombudsman ruled this delay was "especially severe" and the the council should pay Ms X £ addition, the ombudsman said there was a "lack of communication! from the council in explaining its decision whether to award Ms X a personal budget, and that there was a delay in deciding whether to reimburse her for the private said the council should pay Ms X a further £250 for these. You can follow BBC Berkshire on Facebook, X (Twitter), or Instagram.
BBC News
16-05-2025
- BBC News
Slough Borough Council fined over woman's rent increases
A council has been ordered to pay a woman £3,060 for charging her unaffordable rent while she was in temporary homelessness investigation by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman found Slough Borough Council (SBC) had failed to check if the woman - known as Ms X - could afford the accommodation and did not tell her of rent council accepted it was at fault and offered to pay the difference between Ms X's housing benefit and the rental charge between February and March 2024 but the ombudsman said that was not apologised and said it had "updated staff training to highlight the importance of affordability checks". Ms X was placed in a one-bedroom flat by the council when she was homeless in October was charged £184.10 a week, which was the local housing allowance - the maximum amount of benefits a person can claim for private rented rent increased to £455 per week in February 2024, and then to £525 in April council then refused to give Ms X permanent two-bedroom accommodation because she had accrued "significant rent arrears".She went to the ombudsman after the council failed to uphold her complaint. 'Avoidable distress' The ombudsman said Ms X's income was less than the difference between her housing benefit and the rest of her rent, so "on the balance of probabilities, the temporary accommodation was unaffordable for Ms X and therefore unsuitable"."Ms X should not have had to make any payments towards her rent and should not have any outstanding amounts on her rent account," it was ordered to repay Ms X £2,760 for the rent payments made and to reduce her rent account balance to zero, as well as pay £300 for the "avoidable distress and uncertainty".A council spokesperson said: "We acknowledge we failed to do the proper affordability checks on the temporary accommodation, and this led to Ms X being unable to pay the increased rent and then go into arrears."We apologise to Ms X for the upset and uncertainty caused and we have written to Ms X with our apology." You can follow BBC Berkshire on Facebook, X, or Instagram.
