Ex left his job to retrain as a doctor - no maintenance

[Childmaintenancechaser]

My ex had a well paid corporate job (between £120K - £150K at various times). Arranging child maintenance was a struggle, for a long time the level was set at £51 / week for two children for reasons I cannot fully understand (he has limited contact, by choice). Childcare fees were not accepted by the CMS as something he has a duty to contribute to either. I had to return to full time work with two under two, and am still deeply in debt accrued at that time.
Now he finally has a job where he is employed in the UK and his full earnings are under PAYE and thus visible to the HMRC. And... I have just received an official letter from him that he is quitting his current job in order to retrain as a medical doctor and not planning to be in paid employment at least for the next six years. He's in early 50s, and both our children are still under 5.
I don't even know what my AIBU is. AIBU to think that if one has enough funds to get through the medical school, it has to be taken into account for the child support calculation? AIBU to be very jealous at him for having this freedom to do as he wishes?

I just want to state, from a medical school perspective, that we are forbidden by law from discriminating on the basis of age in exactly the same way as everyone else is. If we refused to offer a place to someone on the grounds of his age, he would sue us and he would win.

Do you KNOW the candidate's age when you make the decision? Do you have their application with background details in front of you when deciding or is it somehow anonymised?

I wouldn't doubt that no-one sits and openly says "well we're not going to offer a place to old Mother Hubbard because she's as old as all hell and statistically unlikely to survive until the end of the course", but surely a modicum of common-sense is applied somewhere in the process, if not formally articulated?

I'm old enough to remember when the cut-off was 30, hence the headline-making antics of "Brandon Lee" (AKA Brian MacKinnon).

I think it’s ridiculous that Medical schools will reject able 17-18 year olds if they don’t get top marks at A Level, but will accept some 50 yo who won’t complete the course until retirement age (assuming he lives that long). Just goes to show how greedy universities are really.

I am actually trying to draft a response and this thread is quite helpful for arranging my thoughts.

I would reply with something like this....

I am extremely happy for you. It is a dream of yours I know you have had for a long time, and a very worthwhile one, and I hope you all of the best in this endeavour.

However our children still need to be provided for during this time. My income is not sufficient to cover all essential costs related to our children, I am unable to increase it, and unable to incur any further debt without risking our children's home.

Any suggestions on how we can provide for our children during this time would be most welcome.

He isn’t earning any money so has no money to give you.

Do you want to buy a bridge? I can get you a great deal...

what a spineless waste of a man

It shouldn’t ever be an option, we should have a law where’s illegal not to financially support a child as a parent whether RP or NRP. Far too many don’t.

He may not be lying they aren't allowed to discriminate on the basis of age as it's wrong!
still a shitty thing to do

Actually I think it isn't at all wrong to discriminate on grounds of age for a career like medicine. It costs around £35k per year to train a doctor, and because universities cannot charge more than £9k(ish) per annum the taxpayer picks up the rest of the cost. It is ludicrous to suggest that it's right for the taxpayer to fund a 50-year-old's studies when we won't see anything near a return on investment. Basically it's selfish in the extreme to study medicine in your late 40s/early 50s because it costs such a huge amount.

@HavelockVetinari - While you might not think it's wrong, that doesn't alter the fact that it's illegal.

It's not illegal if it can be objectively justified. Age discrimination is the only type of discrimination where that can be done.

It seems entirely justifiable to me that the state does not pay tens of thousands of pounds to train people who will be unlikely to practise due to their age. What if he was eighty, would that still be OK?