Mother of two children born as a result of rape is preparing to take Labor government to court over ‘discriminatory’ two-child benefit limit

A mother of two children who became pregnant as a result of rape will be allowed to take the Government to court over the two-child benefit ceiling.

Woman accused Department for Work and Pensions of telling her she was ‘raped at the wrong time’; because the judge allowed his case to go to the Supreme Court next year.

The mother, known only as EFG, became pregnant as a result of rape twice during a violent and oppressive relationship that began in adolescence.

She later had two more children, both consensually conceived in a later long-term relationship, but was told she could not claim benefits for her two young children.

The mother is bringing the case against the DWP alongside another woman, LMN, who was subjected to domestic violence by the fathers of her children.

They claim the two-child policy violates human rights and is ‘discriminatory and unreasonable’.

Stock photo of two children playing on a swing. The mother, known only as EFG, became pregnant as a result of rape twice during a violent and oppressive relationship that began in adolescence.

Over the summer, Chancellor Rachel Reeves said she would not lift the limit without saying where the money would ‘come from’ and said she could not promise to do so.

They are represented by the charity Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG), which says women are challenging rules on exceptions to the two-child limit for universal credit.

The two-child limit was introduced in 2017 and limits child tax credit and child benefit payments to the first two children in the household. There is a non-consensual pregnancy exception, sometimes known as the rape provision, that can be made for children who become pregnant as a result of non-consensual sexual intercourse or who are in an abusive relationship.

Lawyer Claire Hall, head of strategic litigation at CPAG, said: ‘Both of these women are subject to the two-child limit despite having children without their consent.

‘This is because the exemption only applies to third or subsequent children, and we say they should also be able to benefit from the exemption for children conceived without their consent, regardless of at what point they are born.’

Department for Work and Pensions sign in Westminster. The mother is bringing the case against the DWP alongside another woman, referred to as LMN, who suffered domestic violence at the hands of the fathers of her children.

The two-child limit announced by the Conservatives in 2015 prevents parents from claiming child tax credit or universal credit for third or subsequent children born after April 2017 (file image)

Speaking through the charity EFG said: ‘Exceptions would apply if I had been raped after my first two children were born, so basically (the DWP) is telling me I was raped at the wrong time.’

The second woman, LMN, is a mother of six children who was exposed to the violent and oppressive behavior of her former partners with whom she had children. CPAG said she was eventually granted an exception for her youngest child but ‘was left without this support for years’.

The charity said both women were estimated to be missing out on thousands of pounds of maintenance due to the current two-child policy.

Allowing the women’s case to proceed following a hearing last month, Mr Justice Fordham said: ‘I have concluded that the issues in this case require airing and competent resolution at a substantive hearing.’

A date for the first hearing has not been set, but CPAG said it is expected in 2025.

Alison Garnham, chief executive of the charity, said: ‘The families in this case are trying to rebuild their lives after years of abuse. However, their mission becomes more difficult due to inhumane rules of self-interest that inflict more suffering on those they are supposed to protect.

‘Social security should provide stability and support in times of need, but the brutality of the two-child limit is clear from what these women and children experience. Their experience should focus on the need to eliminate the policy in its entirety before it causes further harm.’

A DWP spokesman said: ‘We cannot comment on ongoing legal proceedings.’