“Done Because We Are Too Menny”

Abstract

Among a swathe of major welfare reforms, one has received little academic attention – the two-child rule, restricting claims for key benefits to a maximum of two children. In negating the status of specific children within the framework of subsistence benefits, the measure clashes profoundly with a series of international legal obligations. In particular, the rule is set to increase child poverty, calling into question the role and purpose of the un Convention on the Rights of the Child (un crc) in the law-making process. This paper explores problematic recent decisions that risk creating a human rights chasm when it comes to children and social security rights, and argues that existing legal provisions can and should be used to fill that gap. It finds no evidence that the best interests of the child were a primary consideration in the enactment of the two-child rule, and argues that the justificatory narrative of welfare decadence is manifestly without reasonable foundation. If the un crc does not bite here, then we must question whether children have any social security rights at all.

The two‐child limit and fertility decision making: When policy narratives and lived experiences collide

“…A clear objective of the two‐child is to influence fertility decision making amongst parents in (or at risk of) poverty (O'Brien, 2018). The policy documents analysed for this article demonstrate assumptions concerning fertility decision making which underpin the policy justifications and give rise to expected responses to the two‐child limit.…”

“…To claim an exemption on the grounds of rape, parents must provide proof of this being the cause of conception (the so‐called “rape clause”), a process which many have criticised for forcing affected individuals to disclose and potentially relive recent trauma (Engender, 2017; Machin, 2017; Sefton et al, 2019). The policy was a centrepiece of the majority Conservative Government's welfare reform agenda, (and the Welfare Reform Act 2016), but has always been the subject of sustained and often impassioned critique (for example, Bradshaw, 2017; O'Brien, 2018; Sefton et al, 2019). This includes concerns that it would drive up child poverty, and that it would disproportionately negatively affect certain religious and minority ethnic groups, given the varying norms about contraception and family size in different religions and amongst some minority ethnic populations.…”

“…The two-child limit is predicted to be a key driver of increases to child poverty in the coming years (Corlett & Try, 2022;Hood & Waters, 2017). As one objective of the two-child limit is to influence the fertility decision making of parents in (or at risk of) poverty (O'Brien, 2018), it is especially important to explore these in detail. Analysis of administrative birth records from 2017-2019 suggests that the two-child limit had only a very small impact on the fertility of third and subsequent births in England and Wales (Reader et al, 2022).…”

Child Support and the Government’s Children’s Socio-economic Rights Obligations

“…The best interests of the child can only be supported through protecting family well-being, and this includes shielding children from the negative effects of poverty. Growing up in poverty can affect the development of the child in a number of ways (O'Brien, 2018). For example it can have negative effects in relation to both physical and mental health (Cooper and Stewart 2017; Ayre 2016).…”