Despite losing a case alleging discrimination in the Supreme Court last month, a deserted husband has asked the UN Commission on Human Rights to examine his case.
Last month , Mr Tony Lowth failed to persuade the Supreme Court that he had been discriminated against by the social welfare system when he was refused a deserted husbands' payment, similar to deserted wives' benefit, from 1984 to 1989.
In a judgment which has provoked widespread comment, the Supreme Court found that in 1984 the State was justified in holding that deserted wives had greater needs than deserted husbands, justifying special social welfare payments. It upheld a 1993 High Court judgment from Mr Justice Costello, and awarded costs against Mr Lowth.
Because this was a constitutional case, it cannot be appealed to Europe. However, because the Chief Justice, Mr Justice Hamilton, pointed out that the case was contested on narrow grounds, Mr Lowth hopes he can again present the argument to the Irish courts on behalf of his children. However, he may be prevented from doing so by the need to first discharge the costs of the first case.
He is also asking the UN Commission on Human Rights to consider whether delays in his case coming to court violated his human rights.
In its judgment last month, the Supreme Court cited statistics from the 1970s and 1980s showing that married women were less likely to be in the workforce and, therefore, less able to support themselves compared to men at that time. It held that women, if deserted by their husbands, were likely to require financial assistance.
Mr Lowth intends to argue that his children were as entitled to the full-time care of a parent as the children of a deserted wife. He should, therefore, have received a social welfare benefit to enable him to provide it.
There were two relevant social welfare payments at the time - deserted wives' benefit and deserted wives' allowance. The former was based on PRSI contributions, either by the wife or her husband, and was not means tested. Therefore, if she was in a position to do so, the deserted wife in receipt of benefit could also work.
The allowance did not require PRSI payments but it was means tested and meant that she could not work.
Mr Lowth received unemployment benefit, and later unemployment assistance after he gave up work. However, he wanted the social welfare system to recognise that he was needed at home and later, when his children were at school, to be able to work part-time. He could have done so if he had deserted husbands' benefit. This did not exist.
In 1986, Mr Lowth began a protracted legal battle to establish equality of entitlement between deserted wives and husbands. This battle ended - for the moment - in the Supreme Court last month. In 1989, the Government introduced an allowance for widowers and deserted husbands, similar to the non-contributory widows' pension and the deserted wives' allowance. It remained means tested. In 1991, this payment was absorbed, along with a number of others, into the lone parents' allowance.
However, Mr Lowth is still convinced that a bias existed against men who wished, or were forced, to care for their children. He thinks this was implicit in the Supreme and High Court judgments. It is this bias he wishes to challenge.