CMS age limit

Well there's absolutely no way I'd ever buy my child glasses and trainers totalling £400. They'd have to save their pocket money.

Our 3 bed house is approximately £100 more per month in mortgage than a 2 bed house in the same area would be. Our bills have not changed. Our water is on a fixed rate, if the heating is on, it's on, it doesn't cost more to be heating another person.

Fine, it looks as though he’s going to be a hairdresser, a plumber and Electrician first before university then.

All of which will mean he’s in a good position to work part time and fund himself.

But I have very much learnt the hard way that unless it’s legally enforced by a government agency the ex thinks £50 a month is a sufficient contribution towards his older children’s university years. Doesn’t mind sitting on the front row clapping loudly when they graduate though having contributed absolutely bugger all.

You’re not calculating their share of the gas electricity water, rental mortgage on a bigger property.
When I was a single gal back in the day, I owned a three bedroom house that was more than adequate for myself. But it was the wrong area to raise children in in terms of schools.
So there’s an additional cost, assuming you don’t want your kid to go to school in Beirut.
As for even the short period where there’s no funding for Nursery the resident parent gets hammered for the full fees and it’s a rare day that the non-resident parent is even paying half of those with the total amount of CMS
I’m afraid you’re not going to win this argument when you’ve got a five-year-old frankly. Last month I spent £400 on glasses and trainers alone.

But again, there is no legal right to stay with your parents after the age of 18 and some parents might have very good reason not to allow that.

If we say it's mandatory for one parent to house their child in the holidays or pay towards to costs of living at Uni, it must become mandatory for both parents. That's not desirable. What if the parent becomes aware that the child is not turning up to lectures, drinking away all the money they give them and failing all their exams? The usual advice would be to stop giving them money until they take responsibility.

In the UK, 18 is an adult. CMS and CB are extended to cover up to A levels or equivalent as that is considered a minimum standard we want everyone to meet. Anything after that is personal choice and parents- regardless of whether they live with the child or not- are not legally obliged to facilitate it.

@MrsSunshine2b I think the idea would be as if is now - if the DC lives 50/50 during their apprenticeship/in uni holidays with both parents, then there wouldn’t be a CMS payment; or if the child had moved out entirely then there wouldn’t be a CMS payment

HNC and HND are higher education and students are able to apply for student loans so no child maintenance will be payable.

It might be a pretty poor showing, but it's not a legal obligation as CMS is. You can't say one parent can choose how much and when to give their adult child money but the other parent is legally mandated to do so. If we're going to insist on the NRP paying CMS to the adult child's living costs then the RP would surely need to have the same legal obligation?

A good NRP who has a good relationship might well make his/her own voluntary contribution, directly to the child. It's morally the right thing to do but not something that should be legally enforceable.

That's not correct. It continues until they are 20 if they are in approved education. Approved education being:

• A levels or similar, for example Pre-U, International Baccalaureate
• T Levels
• Scottish Highers
• NVQs and most vocational qualifications up to level 3 - excluding intermediate and advanced apprenticeships
• home education - if it started either before your child turned 16 or after 16 if they have special educational needs and disabilities
• traineeships in England

(must be accepted onto the course before they turn 19)

Child Maintenance stops if your child starts studying an ‘advanced’ course, such as a university degree or BTEC Higher National Certificate, or if a course is paid for by an employer.

(source: gov.uk)

That's quite specific. I don't think most ordinary teens are paying out several hundred a month on sports. My phone and contract is £40 a month, I didn't pay £150 for it and it's perfectly good.

But back to your original point. It is based on the household income of the child. I agree it doesn't necessarily make sense. Parental income shouldn't really matter with regards to student finance because having the income doesn't necessarily indicate willingness to contribute.

I spend £150 per week on hobbies for my 2. As part of my divorce I get half of this on top of CMS , when he stops paying me; he’ll give them an allowance. This isn’t a hard one. We don’t need CMS payments, we need dads to be dads and older teens / young adults to be responsible, get jobs and live within their means.

Afraid that you don’t get to dictate what people post about on a public forum OP 🤷‍♀️

It’s the CHILD maintenance service, not the PERSON maintenance service. Once that child reaches working age, they should be getting a job. I had a job in 6th form, so did DS and DSS has been told he will need to in
order to pay for the fuel/insurance for the car we’re getting him for his 17th birthday.

Support has to stop at some point. This is why we’re ending up with a generation of snowflakes who can barely even make a doctor’s appointment without mum doing it for them.

Not anymore no. The time that a child is in nursery full time and not receiving any funded hours is quite a short span of time. We spent about £16k on 3 days a week, term time only, for 2 years, then she turned 3 and got 30 hours funded. Then it was 150 a month in top up fees for 18 months before she started school, so in total we spent about £19k on nursery fees.

Including that, I'm estimating the total cost of raising her to 18 (not accounting for future inflation) to be around £160k. As I said I can't speak for other households or living in London but I think the costs people claim for raising their children are often grossly inflated.

Well, I obviously can't speak for your household or what you think constitutes a good life. My child is only 5 and I recognise there are going to be some additional costs when she is a teenager.

However, currently, she has a happy life, with lots of extra-curricular activities, nice clothes, lovely presents for her birthday and Christmas, lots of days out and holidays. She doesn't have designer shoes, private school or a pony.

I've worked out that accounting for everything I can think of, including holidays and presents which I don't think should necessarily be covered by CM, she costs me £650 pm.

I take it your daughter is not in nursery then.

I could give you a breakdown of my costs, but if you doubled the 350 to 700 that would not touch the sides for raising my teenager. Obviously it depends on the different standards of living and levels of comfort but I don’t see why my boy should have any less because his parents are apart. Than he would’ve when the decision was made by both parents to bring him into the world.

It’s interesting isn’t it? That your issue isn’t the young person should receive any support? It’s that the person who was made career sacrifices. Paid more than 10% of their income towards the child’s well-being and comfort for past 18 years shouldn’t be able to gleen any benefit whatsoever from the situation. Even if that indirectly hugely benefits the NRP’s child.

I suppose this depends a lot on the NRP's income, but an NRP earning an average salary of £35k would have a maximum liability of £350pm.

Over 18 years, that's £75,600. Then there's another £21,600 over 18 years in child benefit, so on average, IF CMS is applying their own rules and chasing payments effectively, that's £97,200. I can find figures ranging from £220,000 up to £290,000 as the "average cost of raising a child" but living outside London, my daughter doesn't cost me anything like that. I feel like £350 would easily cover half the cost of raising DD.

If a child is in higher education, the government considers that the resident parent should still be supporting them. The entire student loan system is built on this assumption.

And this means that the child's student loan entitlement may be seriously affected by the fact that the resident parent has a new partner, even if that new partner isn't willing to support them at all. Surely the non resident parent should have more responsibility to step up than an unrelated partner of the resident parent.

No. No parent is obliged to support a child through FE, it's a choice. Some young adults don't go to University because they can't afford it; others have to work through their degree. The loan is determined on the household income of the child. The income of the NRP will not be considered. If this includes CM then that might simply make them entitled to a lower loan, so would not benefit them anyway.

An adult is expected to work out their own finances and if a parent can help them out a bit to take the pressure off then that is great, but should not be an expectation.

There's absolutely no reason for an adult who has graduated at 21 not to be entirely independent of their parents. If it makes sense for their parent and them to live together then that is all well and good, but it's not the responsibility of the other parent to fund this.

The fact that student finance take into account parents income after 18 when they’re living away from home is absolutely ludicrous and needs to be stopped. They’re applying for loans and grants BECAUSE they don’t have any money and are students ffs.

This is exactly what I mean.

How CMS works as it is now disproportionally benefits the NRP and excuses them from their duty which is then transferred on RP and where necessary, the state.

See this is where the whole system falls apart.

Yes, technically they're adults. And I understand your point that perhaps maintenance should stop....but I'd counter that by saying why then does student finance take into account the resident parent's income.

When my DD goes to uni, I lose all the maintenance my ex-husband pays and I'm expected to contribute towards dd's costs as her loan will be reduced based on my income.

I end up significantly worse off and her dad is quids in.

If they're going to include my income in assessing her award, then it should actually take into account both incomes and both should have to help. Or it should treat them all as adults and give the full loan.