CMS age limit

It’s more about them being able to get their own job at that age. I am a single parent to a disabled child who will never be able to live independently or have a job. Should I get cm payments forever? Wouldnt want them anyway as he only has to pay £28. There’s lots of things I would change about the cms but this isn’t one of them.

In my home country CMS is paid to a resident parent for as long as the child is in education up to 25 years of age I think. Maybe that's a good idea?

Just to be a spiteful little shit I’d happily have parents who opt out of being a parent pay the other parent until the kids are 25, just as a thank you for putting in the work they couldn’t be arsed doing 😁

The point is though that the parent of the 23-year-old doesn’t have to do any of that by law, they do it because they want to. Would you be equally supportive of a law saying parents had to let their twenty-something adult children live with them and pay their bills? Presumably so, else adults whose parents were still together but who couldn’t have them living at home or fund university would be at a massive disadvantage compared to adults of divorced parents with a parent legally mandated to pay them support.

They need to look at the uni aspect or just make the loan the same regardless of parental income. Parents are expected to make a contribution if earning over the threshold. At the moment this is the household where the child lives and uses the RPs and their partners income. It doesn't seem fair to me.

But if they're not in education then surely they are working and can contribute to the household?

Thank you.

She started volunteering in the summer she turned 14 and will continue doing so.

She's also thinking of finding extra opportunities to work/intern during 6th form.
Hopefully that will stand her in good stead 🤞🏾.

Noted, and that situation sucks.

I still draw the distinction between CM and a benefit though

No it shouldn't be paid into adulthood. In other payments, at 18 an adult no longer receives anything. Why should this be any different.

But a widowed parent is still a sole parent, and possibly struggling with no other parent to contribute.

I'm not comparing which is 'worse' but don't agree CSM should continue beyond 18.

OP covered this in her first post:

should there be an obligation to continue to support them in that case, even if it was a direct payment to the child from whom the RP then elicits rent? I

Three of mine were at home for some of those years. The agreement was if they were working they paid board, not us wholly subsidising them.Why should it be different for cms recipients?

I am going to encourage my child to do as many vocational courses before going to university to ensure he gets the maximum amount of child-support up to the age of 20.

Before he goes to do a degree and hopefully if he’s already acquired a HND and a HNC he will only need to do one year of actual higher education. And the ex that gives him absolutely no support aside of finances we’ll have to keep paying.
They’ve been playing the game for a long long time
It’s time to learn the rules of the game and make them work for you

How would you feel about the NRP being obligated to pay from 18-21, but not to the RP, to the young adult themselves? Then they can use it to help support themselves. If part of that is paying some rent/keep to the parent they live with, so be it

Because child maintenance isn’t a benefit! It’s not bestowed by the NRP on the RP, it’s an acknowledgment of the joint costs of their shared child. Which do not cease at 18/on the last day of school.

For those saying they can claim UC..isn't it pretty poor that we'd rather tax payers support young people than make absent parents accountable?

It also means their stamp is covered. I don't think it's great for young adults to be supported by parents and have gaps in their NI record.

Also, it's hard enough getting child support paid if the NRP is unwilling, extending that period just means that RPs who aren't getting it will be picking up the slack longer.

As a single parent myself I will (I'm confident my ex will too) support my daughter through uni; but not beyond. When she gets back I expect she will find a job - any job, until she gets her dream role - and start learning to fend for herself

With two kids who've graduated with very good degrees in the last two years, I have to say that it did come as a surprise how hard it's been for them to get that first proper job and that has been the experience of all their peers. Good kids, hard working, eloquent, committed.

What has got me kids that first job ahead of many of their peers (still 6-8 months) has been their continuous work and volunteering experience.

Parents funding their kids throughout Uni so their kids don't have to work are really doing them a disservice.

I would encourage all uni kids to do some work, during or in between terms, and if possible, try to do anything relating to their course. Those kids who do have such an advantage when they come out of it.

As the NRPs of my DHs young adult children if we were paying CMS to DH's ex then we wouldn't be in a position to pay (much more than the CMS would be) to the DC to support them at uni, travelling etc. Also how would you even calculate that, ie how much of the time is the child at home of RP v at uni, or travelling or working away, at NRP or staying at their partners etc.

Income is tsken into account but my sister wasent expected to fund her son through uni he got loans ,,she sent him the odd tenner here and there aa did his dad .

Given the RPs are supposed to partially fund their DC through uni according to the student loan company, the OP sort of has a point...
They do take it into account from a loan perspective, but they are still not legally expected to pay.

What is the young person doing with the rest of his time? If he has no other job or study, surely he can work more than 16 hours and not rely on his dad's top ups? If Tesco not offering more hours?

As a single parent myself I will (I'm confident my ex will too) support my daughter through uni; but not beyond. When she gets back I expect she will find a job - any job, until she gets her dream role - and start learning to fend for herself.

Given the RPs are supposed to partially fund their DC through uni according to the student loan company, the OP sort of has a point...

Either DC are supposed to be independent from 18 or they're not.

But the RP is choosing to continue to financially support the DC post 18. They are not forced to. So why should the NRP be forced to? Or am I missing something?

The issue OP is that it comes down to Choice. No RP is required to help their adult children financially.

The reasons why some parents, rps or nrps continue to support their children once adults are complex and each case is different.

The bottom line is that young adults do have access to financial support via other means because they are deemed adults.

Of course, it's not great that the public purse takes over parents, but there has to be a limit. It can be looked from a different perspective. It actually cost the public purse less to support an adult directly than it does when they are a child via UC to their RP in many instances.

As someone in their twenties who has a sister also in her twenties who still lives at home, moving out in a few weeks, I disagree.

While I do agree that it’s unrealistic to expect a 18 year old to be fully independent these days, it’s not unrealistic to expect an 18 year old to be earning money and therefore paying towards the household they live in. Neither me or my sister were completely financially independent at 18, but we were both working and so were paying for our own food shopping and could contribute towards the household.

How would that be fair when, for example Widowed Parent's Allowance ends when the child is 18? Change that as well?

That's been overtaken by Bereavement Support for those who have been widowed after 2017, but what I'm saying is other benefits are only payable to age 18