Anne Murray only recently became aware of article 41.2 of the Constitution, which references a woman’s “duties” and “life within the home”.
She was among almost 74 per cent of voters who rejected the Government’s referendum bid to replace the current wording with a nod to family carers.
Now, Murray hopes the article, which is being cited in an upcoming Supreme Court appeal, can help secure recognition for her work as a full-time carer to her 22-year-old daughter, Rachael Geoghegan.
Rachael was born with floating harbour syndrome, a rare genetic condition that has left her with significant developmental delay and epilepsy. She is non-verbal, requires a wheelchair and needs daily changing, feeding and washing.
Murray’s caring, which is largely confined to their home in Co Offaly near Portarlington, was previously acknowledged by a €236 weekly carer’s payment. This was the maximum awarded under the means-tested social assistance scheme, before October’s budget raised it by €12.
Pay increases for Murray’s husband, a construction foreman in Dublin, led to her being told last May she was entitled to no allowance. The couple appealed, arguing they have significant additional expenses due to Rachael’s condition. Murray was then offered €6 per week, before a recent letter indicated this will change to €18. The amounts are an “insult”, she says, adding that her family of three are “not well off”.
Means testing kicks in when a partner’s gross weekly wage reaches €750. The threshold rises to €900 in June.
“With things the way they are it is not enough,” she says, pointing to their nearly €200 monthly mortgage increase and a recent €8,000 spend on a wheelchair-adapted car.
Rachael, who attends a centre between 10am and 3.30pm on weekdays, receives a disability payment. Murray stresses that this is for Rachael, and the couple try to put some of it away for her care in later life.
Had Murray been able to continue working after Rachael’s birth, she says, she would undoubtedly be earning more than €18 per week.
“I don’t expect us to be better off, but it is a disgrace that we should be worse off financially because we have an adult daughter with a disability,” she says.
Finances aside, Murray feels emotionally hurt by a system she believes fails to recognise her contribution..
“I do feel discriminated against when it comes to being a carer, being a woman, being in the home and getting no recognition whatsoever,” she says.
“You feel dependent on your partner … when on the full carer’s allowance, for me it was like having a wage,” she says.
With article 41.2 left intact after the resounding rejection of change proposed in the March 8th referendum, Murray is hanging hopes on another woman’s upcoming Supreme Court appeal that cites the article and argues she should not have been refused the maximum carer’s allowance.
This woman provides 24-hour care at home to her adult son, who has significant disabilities. Because her partner – the father of her son – earned €848 per week, she was assessed in 2021 as entitled to €134 weekly.
Article 41.2 recognises that “by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved” and says the State shall “endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home”.
She lost her High Court case contending that the Minister for Social Protection is legally obliged to make regulations that would entitle her to the full allowance.
Failure to do so, she submitted, breached her constitutional rights, including to equal treatment and under article 41.2 to have her work in the home recognised and supported.
Dismissing the case last June, the High Court’s Ms Justice Niamh Hyland acknowledged the reduced allowance causes “significant personal and financial strain” to the woman and her family. However, she found the Minister is not obliged to make more generous regulations for the carer’s allowance.
Even accepting the allowance vindicates the life of the woman within the home, article 41.2 cannot be treated as dictating the level of allowance to be paid, the judge held.
A panel of Supreme Court judges determined last October that the woman’s appeal raised issues of “systemic importance”.
They noted that article 41.2 has not been extensively considered by the courts and has never been examined in the context of providing public funds to parents obliged to care full-time for severely disabled children.
Her appeal, scheduled for next month, is opposed by the Minister for Social Protection, the social welfare appeals office, Attorney General and Ireland.
In the High Court, they argued the means test does not interfere with the woman’s right to earn a livelihood. The allowance is a financial assistance and is not intended to function as a salary in remuneration for care, they submitted.
Murray intends to take a day off from her caring role on April 11th to attend the woman’s appeal in Dublin.
“A lot of what happens in the future … I think it does hang on her case. Hopefully, she will win it for herself and set a precedent for everyone else,” she says.
Murray believes the allowance should not be means tested but should be based on the needs of the person with a disability, with higher amounts for those with profound, permanent conditions.
In seeking remuneration for herself, Murray emphasises the joy Rachael brings to her life and says she “would not want anyone else caring for her”.
She does not have to ask her husband for money, but she took pride in being paid for the care she provides. The allowance “was not a lot”, she says, “but it was your own, and you would be doing the work”.
- Listen to our Inside Politics Podcast for the latest analysis and chat
- Sign up for push alerts and have the best news, analysis and comment delivered directly to your phone
- Find The Irish Times on WhatsApp and stay up to date
