DSC and Child benefit

[evilstepmuvva]

Have posted in AIBU for traffic.
My DSC has been completely poisoned against us by ex wife and whilst this is devastating we have accepted the decision because DSC is almost an adult.
However there is a case open with CMS. But in the last few months we have been told 100% that DSC is no longer in education and is in fact earning a very good wage (massively over minimum for a 17 year old)
However CMS are fucking useless. We asked them months ago to check whether ex wife is still eligible for CB therefore making maintenance payable and we have been told numerous times they would check. They still haven't.
We have then been told by a relative of ex wife that DSC is absolutely no longer at college and is in fact working full time and paying board.
Is there any way my DH can confirm himself whether child benefit is in payment for his child?
Don't get me wrong if it is then maintenance will be paid however ex wife fraudulently claimed for years as a single mother (while living with a rich fiancé and taking cash in hand from DH) unfortunately we didn't find out about this until she had stopped doing it.
There is a complicated backstory as to why we have been told of DSCs new circumstances but it is very identifying I'm just at my wits end because CMS are so fucking shiftless!

@caffeinestream because even in this day and age kids more often than not stay with mum as it is still the norm that she is the primary carer. It requires the cooperation of both parents to facilitate equal and fair contact and it is all to easy in acrimonious splits, for the resident parent to ensure that the children lose contact with the NRP. It's not a simple, black and white situation unfortunately

Yes it is black and white- kids cost money! To the above poster children get to an age where they would rather go with friends. It makes my dd actually wanting to go with me to a concert that much sweeter. Your dh absolutely did the right thing in staying in contact through thick and thin . As to still paying for a 20 year old in work maybe he is Thinking of funding both to uni graduating age ?

Still not getting why her previously committing benefit fraud is in the slightest bit relevant to either you or the situation

Benefit fraud harms us all. It harms taxpayers because we are paying money to someone who is not entitled to it and it harms those claiming benefits because it reduces the amount available and damages the reputation of those making genuine claims.
Although it seems that these are not the reaons that the OP is interested.

The alleged benefit fraud (gossipy hearsay) is completely irrelevant as to whether her DH should be paying maint for his child.

Had the question been phrased differently rather than a hotch potch of lame excuses as to why the OP didn't think her DH should pay, the answers would have been very different. All I've taken away from this thread is : The OP objects to the childs mother having a better level of income and doesn't need maint.

You sound so bitter.

Her income is nothing to do with you. I feel sorry for the dsc who's dad can't wait to stop supporting him financially.

Surely you owe her for her having done all your dh parenting?

Doesn't mean the dad will stop supporting, just that he will give to to the child/adult directly when needed rather than the mother.

There had to be a point when a young adult is working and earning for themselves that
Yes parents do stop regular support! Maybe treats here and there, but not a monthly top up. How is that helping them to grow up and be responsible for themselves?

There had to be a point when a young adult is working and earning for themselves that Yes parents do stop regular support!

Not when an adult child is living with you you don't. Fair enough when they move out, but Imhave yet to,hear of an adult child paying their fair share of mortgages/rent, bills, home maintenance and food.

I feel quite sure that mum will not be throwing out her adult child just because the maintenance and tax credits stop.

How many more times???

www.gov.uk/know-when-you-can-leave-school

The OP is working on gossip, no facts, just family gossip.

Child maintenance payments usually stop when the child reaches 16 (or 20 if they’re in full-time education up to A-level or equivalent). You can leave school/FT education at 16 providing you start an apprenticeship.

So, it's perfectly possible for the ex in this situation not to be entitled to maintenance.

I know that DH will stop making payments to his ex the Autumn after each child turns 18. However, the money will go directly to his child until they leave university.

I imagine that if his kids weren't speaking to him, he'd also choose not to support them through university.

Op I have some experience of both parental alienation and paying maintenance to a 17yo who is no longer in ft education (different DSDs though - we still see the 17yo but haven't seen the 20yo since she was 14). I get it. The frustration, the injustice, the hurt, the anger. Your dh has done right to keep the door open, as has mine.

My best advice to you is to continue paying until 18, to his ex, and attempt to make an arrangement directly with the dc after this age. Not as a bribe, but 18 is classed as adult and I totally get that you and your dh don't want thing to his ex forever more. Particularly when I am sure she has behaved very badly. This is mn. The NRP is usually in the wrong, as are step parents. There are grabby, vile exes out there who deliberately turn their dc against the NRP. You do have to try to rise above it where the dc are concerned, though I appreciate how difficult that is. Good luck.

If a tally was done at the point a child finally and properly leaves home and gets their own place, I would be fairly certain thst even the most generous of maintenance payers would still not have paid more than the Resident parent.

On the surface I have s very generous payment each month from my ex, which covers mortgage and utilities in the house I share with the children. However, there are so many ridiculous small and not so small payments which occur almost daily which people don't take into account when assessing that the RP is getting a good deal; every time the child is invited to a birthday party, every time school requires a costume for the play/world book day, every summer soccer camp, Tae kwo do lesson, Cubs fees, and on and on....

If my ex gave me £100 for the kids and I spent it on a new handbag, then the £100 of my own money I'd have used to treat myself would be spent on the children many times over, so it's all swings and roundabouts.
The house has a pot of money and the RP decides where it's best spent. And as previously said, I would bet that the RP rarely 'makes' on the deal, and will end up paying more over the child's lifetime. And that's just financially, it doesn't take into account the physical and emotional extra they put into the child's upbringing.

Any father who is happy to get away with paying the minimum, who does clever things with tax to avoid showing as having a wage (all those rich business owners 'paying themselves' £20k a year to avoid maintenance), or who arent fighting every day of their lives to see their children if access is denied, are a shower of shit.
If they gripe about the cost it would be to go through the courts but then still ever have holidays, a nice car, nights out or expensive clothes then it's very clear that their priority isn't their children, regardless of their feelings for the mother. I would go into debt ten times over to fight through the courts and never have a moments rest if I was denied access to my children. More so if I thought the RP wasn't a good parent. I'd never let it rest, then I could look my child in the face when the time came and know I did everything I could.

Doesn't matter if she has money from fraud, benefits, lotto win, if she single or a has a (mega rich) partner or not. It doesn't matter how much money the son does or doesn't earn.
Your husband should pay for his child. You should want your husband to pay for his child.
If you are a parent you always put your child first.

Also it is so hard to move out at a young age these days - if his son is thinking of moving out why wouldn't his dad help him?