CMS age limit

Yeah they’re adults but potentially in the extreme the NRP has paid less than a few thousand across their whole life and the burden has been on the RP and the state.

People are saying the state shouldn’t be so generous. Well my point is if you got NRP to pay appropriately the state wouldn’t need to pay out so much.

I think if they go to Uni aged up to say 21, that the other parent should be forced to contribute towards Uni costs. CMS will end once DD leaves college and then I will have to fund her myself through Uni. (although his £30 a week doesn't go far, it could make a huge difference to DD while studying).

As far as life costs go though, I have made it very clear to DD that there is no such thing as a free ride, and that if not in education, she needs to be working full time and paying a decent amount of lodge money to pay her way.

The point is that they are not children ,they are adults in their own right.

I don’t really understand why people are arguing against the NRP having to pay more when tbh the amount of maintenance often paid through CMS would struggle to keep a pet alive let alone cover half the costs of raising a child.

Also you have people on other threads saying benefits need to be cut and yet here you have posters saying instead of forcing the NRP to pay the child should claim benefits instead. it would be far better for society for parents to cover the costs of their child into early adulthood then it would be to put the cost on the state. Doesn’t really make sense tbh

It doesn’t matter that they still live at home. They’re adults. They can work full time, drive, vote, take out credit, claim benefits etc.

Adult children may not be able to afford to move out and the parents allow them to live there still but that doesn’t mean you should be receiving child maintenance for them. The fathers could pay them directly.

The changes havent gone through yet and when they do its the disabilliy element of UC they are targetting although as i said i think they will have to have a re think about this at least for the severley disasbled who will never be able to work in any capacity

How recent is this? My daughter claimed Universal Credit between the ages of 19 and 21. (claim ended in 2023) She didn't get much and it varied month to month depending on how many hours she worked, but it topped her rent up.

Very few responders on this thread have taken aboard the point that part of the recent restructuring of benefits is to say that young people under 22 cannot claim benefits that over-22yo are entitled to - ie their parents still have to look after them. The lovely privileged bubble of mumsnet forgets that only about 40% of 18-21yos go to university. About 13% of young people in this age group at NEET (Not in Education, Employment or Training) - compared to 4% of the general working-age population, and if they aren't going to be entitled to benefits then their parents will have to support them. BOTH parents. The fact that a lot of nice well educated young people in this age group do thrive, get jobs and qualifications, and don't need that support is irrelevant to the question - if an 18-22year old isn't in that category anfld is still requiring support, shouldn't that come from both parents?

Every 18-25 year old should be fully independent. Just because the world has changed and getting on the property ladder ladder is harder doesn’t given an excuse not to be independent.

Giving money after a child turns into an adult should be at the individual parents discretion. Not everyone has the luxury of being able to fund another human beings life forever.

I agree Sunny - dd moved out/away aged 19 her college course was 3 years and it was also in the middle of covid. She moved to London for work/further study and went into a house-share. She did return home after 2 years but that was her/our choice and she paid rent to us from her full time minimum wage job and covered all of her own expenses before going to uni as an independent, mature student.

She is/was an adult

Work experience will help him get a job more than additional courses if he already has a degree. Too many graduates have no work experience and plenty of education.

I hear what you are saying, but many 18-year-olds are fully independent. They can work - and should be paying their way if they are living at home (eg. their own food, transport and other living expenses). If a young adult with a job lives with a parent and has no (or highly subsidised) rent, they are better off than many. The purpose of a student loan is to enable students from all backgrounds to study at university. A financially independent student would need a part time job to support themselves, but that is more than doable.

From my own experience - I moved out when i was 18 and worked three jobs initially. I had my own flat. If I was in the same position today I would be considering a flat share rather than my own place. Yes, the world has changed but it is still possible to be financially independent. There isn't an easy option. It was hard work for me 10 years ago, heck when my parents were just starting out they had an airbed on the floor of a run-down flat for a few years. I think there should be more done to address the housing crisis. I think their should be more support for young people, single parents. (Let's face it, one person's salary especially when just starting out, is not enough to afford rent and living expenses unless you are in a low cost of living area)

I joined the military and in doing so set myself up financially. This route is still open today.

Of course you can. Isn't that normal to apply for other jobs while still having one. And if it's 16 hours that can be done around college or other training

So by your logic anyone with a job can’t get another job / better job because applying for jobs is so time consuming?

have you got any more excuses for him?!

I think it's a dreadful idea.

Both my children are ND but I made it abundantly clear that when they left education they would be expected to contribute to the household, job or no job. Universal credit for an 18 year old isn't much, but it is still there and having to live off that (including paying rent) focuses the mind on getting a job.

The NRP should not be obliged to provide anything that the RP isn't obliged to. The RP chooses to allow their YP to still live there without contributing.

But that’s quite a luxurious position to be in, isn’t it? Most people have to work to have money coming in, that’s life.

I worked part time in a pub while at uni getting my law degree, that was long hours and low wage, it was also essential to keep me ticking over while I studied and now I have my “dream” job I suppose you could say. The skills I developed working in that pub did more for my CV & interview competency examples than any online course ever would have done.

Same here. If the child goes to university the child maintenance still applies. We don't have a loan system here but any grants are means assessed (and parents are expected to contribute) so I think it's only fair that both parents support their children in their education. Why should the nrp get off scot free on this?

He could spend that time working in a part time job to earn extra cash though. It wouldn’t be a dream job, but it’s a job & it’s money.

So when a now adult can get a job and earn their own wages the (usually dad) is still expected to pay maintenance? lol joker

The difference is between choice and necessity. It is entirely necessary to support children financially because they cannot support themselves. Supporting adult children is a choice.

I do think there’s an argument for CMS to continue throughout education though, especially given the expectation of parental support and the impact it has on a students ability to access funding.