A/66/265 burden on the State, and use instances of benefit fraud to influence the public discourse on poverty.48 60. Social benefit fraud and non-compliance are strongly condemned by the public and rigorously pursued by authorities.49 Where fraud is established, it can result in the reduction of the individual’s benefit to cover repayment of the defrauded amount, and the commencement of criminal proceedings against the individual.50 When a beneficiary is convicted of fraud he or she may face a lifetime ban from the social benefit system. If beneficiaries have outstanding warrants they may have their social benefit cut off until the warrant is resolved or they are granted an exemption. These measures are extremely harsh and will have grave consequences for people already struggling with poverty and exclusion, perpetrating the disadvantage which induces them to rely on social benefits to begin with. 61. Being excluded from social benefit assistance has an especially harsh effect on women, who make up the majority of social benefit beneficiaries, and who generally hold primary responsibility for the care of children and maintenance of the household. If women are denied access to social benefits, it will generally have implications for the whole family. Furthermore, there is an increased likelihood that women will remain in or return to abusive relationships, or be forced to live in other vulnerable situations, if they are unable to access social benefits.51 62. Women are also exposed to State interference in their private and family lives in other respects. In particular, States’ ever-increasing preference for child protection interventions overwhelmingly affects poor women specifically,52 and persons living in poverty more generally. Research shows a clear and consistent link between child protection intervention and the disadvantage and marginalization of the families involved.53 Poverty must not be mistaken for child neglect. Often States disproportionately target children in poor families for child protection proceedings instead of channelling their efforts towards addressing the root causes of child poverty. 63. Persons living in poverty will often struggle to navigate the child protection process, which in many countries is an extremely intrusive, adversarial process. Child protection interventions often fail to provide families with sufficient __________________ 48 49 50 51 52 53 18 For example, in one country, it is estimated that in 2009/10, social benefit fraud and error cost the State £3.3 billion, whereas tax evasion cost the State £40 billion. See Deborah Padfield, “Fraud’n’error: tax avoidance and evasion”, 20 July 2011. Available from www.opendemocracy.net. M.D.R. Evans and J. Kelley, “Are tax cheating and welfare fraud wrong? Public opinion in 29 nations”, Australian Social Monitor, vol. 3, No. 4 (2001), p. 93. Walsh and Marston (note 47 above), p. 109. Mary E. Baker, “Double binds facing mothers in abusive families: social support systems, custody outcomes, and liability for acts of others”, The University of Chicago Law School Roundtable, vol. 2 (1995), p. 13. Heather Douglas and Tamara Walsh, “Mothers and the child protection system”, International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, vol. 23, No. 2 (August 2009), p. 211; Naomi Cahn, “Policing women: moral arguments and the dilemmas of criminalization”, DePaul Law Review, vol. 49 (2000), p. 817. In some countries, families on public assistance are four times more likely than others to be investigated and have their children removed from the family home on the basis of child maltreatment. See Douglas J. Berharov, “Child abuse realities: over-reporting and poverty”, Virginia Journal of Social Policy and the Law, vol. 8 (2000), pp. 183-184. 11-44449