Key Takeaways
- Philippa Millanta, an Auckland mother with a court‑ordered 50/50 custody arrangement for her two sons (ages 5 and 12), is denied the Sole Parent Support (SPS) benefit despite sharing care equally.
- MSD refused her SPS application because her ex‑partner had already been granted the benefit, citing a “first‑in, first‑served” interpretation of the Social Security Act 2018.
- Millanta currently receives Jobseeker Support, accommodation supplements, temporary additional support and Working For Families payments, but must also pay child support, leaving her with only about $372 per week—roughly $150 less than the maximum SPS rate of $521.
- She describes the denial as “crippling,” worries about future homelessness, and feels penalised for being employed and actively involved in her children’s lives.
- MSD’s assessment for SPS in shared‑care situations examines who has greater day‑to‑day responsibility (e.g., arranging schooling, medical care, work adjustments, financial contributions) rather than merely looking at custody orders.
- The Social Security Act 2018 expressly allows only one parent to receive SPS for a given child, which underpins MSD’s position, although the agency states it can reconsider if new evidence shows a change in caregiving circumstances.
- Social Development Minister Louise Upston defends the current policy as intended to help single parents prepare for or find part‑time work and says she has no plans to amend the settings, while acknowledging shared‑care arrangements can be complex.
- Millanta has considered requesting a review but believes the outcome would likely still favour only one parent; she advocates for a fair split of the benefit that reflects actual shared caregiving.
Background and Custody Arrangement
Philippa Millanta separated from her partner four years ago. After a court custody battle, the judge ordered a 50/50 split of care for their two boys, now aged five and twelve. Although her ex‑partner initially had primary custody, the court order subsequently granted each parent equal responsibility. Millanta presented this order to Work and Income New Zealand (WINZ) when she applied for the Sole Parent Support (SPS) benefit, expecting to receive assistance commensurate with her shared‑care role.
Denial of Sole Parent Support and the “First‑In, First‑Served” Reason
When Millanta’s application was processed, WINZ (operating under the Ministry of Social Development, MSD) told her that, despite the court order, they could not help her because her ex‑partner had already been granted SPS. She recalled the officer saying, “there was nothing they can do to help me,” and that the decision was based on a “first come, first served” approach. Millanta found this rationale troubling, arguing that the law should reflect the actual caregiving situation rather than the timing of an earlier application.
Financial Strain and Current Benefits
Without SPS, Millanta relies on a patchwork of other entitlements: the Jobseeker Support benefit (about $372 per week), accommodation supplements, temporary additional support, and the Working For Families tax credit. She also remains liable to pay child support to her ex‑partner, despite the equal care arrangement. Consequently, her weekly income falls roughly $150 short of the maximum SPS payment of ≈ $521, leaving her to cover rent and only a modest amount for food. She described the situation as “crippling,” noting that any lapse in supplementary aid could push her toward homelessness.
Personal Impact and Feelings of Penalisation
Millanta expressed deep stress about her financial precarity, worrying that if she could not sustain the children’s basic needs she might lose custody. She emphasized that she views herself as an active member of society—working, caring for her children, and meeting her obligations—but feels penalised for being employed. “It feels like being a worker is a detriment, whereas I thought I was being an active member of society,” she said, adding that she is not requesting the full SPS entitlement, merely her fair share under the 50/50 arrangement.
How MSD Assesses Shared‑Care Cases
MSD clarified that eligibility for SPS in shared‑care situations is not determined solely by custody orders. According to Graham Allpress, group general manager of client service delivery, an assessment examines who bears greater day‑to‑day responsibility for the children. Factors considered include who arranges schooling or daycare, manages medical appointments, adjusts work schedules for childcare, contributes financially, and makes decisions about daily activities. Relevant evidence may also include prior Work and Income applications for child‑related support and any Oranga Tamariki documentation. The agency stressed that a change in caregiving circumstances can prompt a reassessment.
Legal Framework Limiting SPS to One Parent
Underpinning MSD’s stance is the Social Security Act 2018, which stipulates that only one parent may receive SPS for a given child. Because Millanta’s ex‑partner had previously been awarded the benefit, her application was processed as a Jobseeker Support claim instead. Allpress noted that this is not a rigid “first‑in, first‑served” rule but a legislative limitation that prevents duplicate payments for the same child. Nevertheless, Millanta’s counsel argued that the act does not accommodate genuine shared‑care realities where both parents contribute substantially to the children’s upbringing.
Official Responses and Review Options
Minister of Social Development Louise Upston defended the current policy, stating that SPS aims to help single parents prepare for or secure part‑time work. She acknowledged that shared‑care arrangements can be complex but indicated she has no present intention to alter the policy settings. Allpress added that applicants who disagree with a decision may request a review; if new evidence shows a shift in caregiving responsibility, the agency can revisit the SPS eligibility determination. Millanta said she had not yet pursued a review, believing the likely outcome would still award the benefit to only one parent, which she views as unfair to both parties.
Millanta’s Call for a Fairer Approach
Millanta’s primary request is for the benefit system to recognise the actual division of care in shared‑custody situations, potentially allowing a proportional split of the SPS payment between parents. She contends that the current framework unfairly privileges the parent who first applied, despite both parents meeting the caregiving criteria. By highlighting her reliance on multiple supplementary benefits and ongoing child‑support obligations, she underscores the financial gap that a fairer allocation could alleviate. Her experience raises broader questions about how welfare policy adapts to evolving family structures and whether legislative adjustments are needed to ensure equitable support for parents who genuinely share caregiving duties.