Child Maintenance: When does it stop

[1stTimeMama]

Wasn't sure where to post this, so please redirct me if needs be.

We pay CMS for my husbands son. He turned 20 in October, but is doing a level 2 BTEC at college. The CMS gave us an end date of the 1st October, but his Mum has been in touch today chasing her payments, and has said we are to pay until 1st November 2020.

As far as the internet tells me today, payments cease when the 'child' turns 20, regardless of if they're in education, and when they are no longer eligible for child benefit, also 20.

Could anyone please confirm where we now stand with payments please? We will of course call CMS as soon as possible, but we'd like some kind of answer sooner.

There's barely any living expenses for either of them

How do you know the mother isn't paying expenses or duding her parents? The op said he still lives at home, with his mum and his grand-parents. His Mum has never left home.

There is no information on who is paying the bills or to suggest the mother is financially dependent on her parents.

Cms should stop at 18! 20nis ridiculous go out and get a job!

Don't pay her anything. It sounds like she's just annoyed that income will stop.

@whyamidoingthis I get what you are saying but sometimes things just don't work out. Its nice if your parents can or want to support you, but if not it's up to the adult to either find a solution or take a different path.

Sounds like legally maybe 20 is the upper limit, but you'd need to check with CMS. Whether morally it's the right thing to cease support when your DC is in full time education, trying to improve their employability and prospects is another matter. I'd continue to help support them until.they are out of education and working , we are doing so with our DC age 19 and 20 even though it means sacrifices. At the very least I'd let them.live with me for free and provide all meals.

@Chattybum - I get what you are saying but sometimes things just don't work out.

Which is why I said Obviously some parents cannot help financially and that is a very different situation

I think parents who simply do not want to help their barely adult children to get an education are failing in their parental responsibilities. That is different to being unable to help financially. Parents who are unable to help financially generally help and support in other ways.

I'd just have been so embarrassed at 20 if I'd had to keep asking my parents for money!

It's just wrong whe. You're capable of getting a job.

Hahahahahaha! You should try being a first wife or the child of a first marriage. I am not aware of any first children that get special treatment. The majority get nothing financially - that's a fact if you look at CMS statistics. I have financed my ex's relationships and new family for years by the simple fact that he pays absolutely £zero maintenance. I am hardly the only person in that position.

Oh. But I am. My DS11 receives zero maintenance from his father.

It's by being in exactly that boat and watching the entitlement and spitefulness portrayed by other "first wives" that I see exactly what they're doing. Deliberate, grabby, and scorned. Anything against the ex at anyone's detriment, especially if it can be his subsequent children they can affect. Not all are like that, for sure. I'm not. For all I know you're not either. But MN is rife with them. The glee in causing disadvantage to "new" children because they can't accept their marriage broke down is quite horrifying to see in some cases. The "go on, ruin him and those kids they've dared to have" comradery. It's just awful.

And this is all this is. A woman still trying to get hundreds a month for a twenty year old man who lives at home with her and his grandparents and doesn't get a job because 2 days out of 7 he's on a course. Dressed up as "but it's not for me, its my poor full grown adult child's entitlement"

The bottom line is, the mum no longer has parental responsibility for the twenty year old, because he is an adult now. She may choose to continue to support him, but she is not obliged to and neither is the father.

It sounds harsh but a line has to be drawn somewhere. The moral line is hazy but the legal one is very clear. Adults do not generally have financial responsibility for other adults.

The bottom line is, the mum no longer has parental responsibility for the twenty year old, because he is an adult now. She may choose to continue to support him, but she is not obliged to and neither is the father.

It sounds harsh but a line has to be drawn somewhere. The moral line is hazy but the legal one is very clear. Adults do not generally have financial responsibility for other adults.

Spot on

It's not "legally" required to buy your children as much as you can afford, when it comes to books, music or sports lessons, trips or experiences, birthday or Christmas presents, either. Bargain basement, bare minimum parenting is legal - as long as you're not abusive. But most good parents give their children as many advantages as they possibly can in life.

Some people can't afford anything extra, and simply try as best they can. Many people also teach their young adult children resilience and the value of money by withdrawing support gradually.

But deliberately refusing to support further education? When the child's loan is pegged to your income anyway, so you know society expects it? In the current climate, with recession looming, to condemn your child to a life of minimum wage jobs with no prospects, possibly a lifetime of earning below living wage... ? Yeah I judge the hell out of that.

Further education isn't some fancy pants luxury. It's critical.

@Fweakout - excellently put.

You keep mixing up children and adults. The man in question is twenty. He is not a five year old.

If there are things he needs he can go and buy them with money he has earned (or borrowed in the case of university costs). A five year old cannot do this so an adult has to provide for them. Which his parents presumably have done for the last twenty years?

@Chattybum

You keep mixing up children and adults. The man in question is twenty. He is not a five year old.

My 21 year old son and 19 year old daughter are just as much my children as my 16 year old son is. My parents certainly consider me to be their child, despite the fact I am 55 years old and have been financially independent since I left university 34 years ago (and yes, they did support me in university, although I worked over the holidays to help pay as much as I could).

Ok @whyamidoingthis if that's the case what response do you think you would get if you asked your parents to pay for your rent / mortgage and university fees for the next three years. Presumably you would judge the hell out of them if they said no?

It's a stupid argument to not accept that a child's age does have an impact on how much financial responsibility a parent has to take with them.

I think you both sound delightful 🙄

Exdp supports Ds and he’s still at university and also works part time which he’s done since 16. But running a car etc, as well as university costs means that whilst working and getting loans he still needs support off us as parents. We’ll support him as long as he needs supporting. Likewise the same will happen with ds14. I’m grateful that exdp’s partner doesn’t have the same mindset as you, but then my exdp also helps to support her daughter who is the same as our Ds. We all just want the best for them.

The child's father hasn't done any parenting, so neither he or op are in a position to assume he's just bumming around doing courses for the sake of it. For all either of them know he's really struggled to find something he can manage.

And tbh, if continuing to support an older child means your second child will go without, then your finances should be considered before having another. Same for anyone considering a first child with someone that already has a child. Having another and whining about the cost of the first really isn't acceptable. And I'm not a bitter member of the first wives club, I'm a stepmother.

@Chattybum - It's a stupid argument to not accept that a child's age does have an impact on how much financial responsibility a parent has to take with them.

Of course it does but you were nitpicking over the use of the word child for the stepson (You keep mixing up children and adults.). The word has two meanings and it was being used in the context of someone being a child of a parent, not someone being a minor. But I assume you knew that and were just being disingenuous, as it was pretty obvious from the context.

There is also a difference between how much financial responsibility a parent has to take and how much they should. I think a parent should finance their child's education to the best of their abilities. These days, that includes uni. Yes, the (adult) child should help by working during the holidays and, if parents can't afford to help much, also during term time.

I value education and want to give my children the best chance I can afford to give them. I prefer them to work during holidays and to work minimally during term time. We have saved to ensure this is possible. We are in the fortunate position to be able to do that because our parents also valued education and helped to support us through uni.

@whyamidoingthis is correct.

I didn’t have to read to my children every night or teach them times tables or help with homework or treat them to holidays abroad. Not strictly legally. But I did all that because I love them and I want them to have good lives. It’s called parenting.

I am in my 50s and have had some really rough times especially when The idiot i used to be married to done a runner overseas and never paid a penny for his children, not once did i phone my Dad to ask for help, my Dad is the most loving generous man on earth and would have given me money without batting an eyelid. I was a adult and done what adults are supposed to do, i stood on my own 2 feet and got on with it.
There comes a point in life where you need to stop treating your adult children like toddlers and let them grow up, when they are 18 the need to be treated like the adult they are

I think if you're financially able to support your dc while they're in ft education then you should do. By "support" I don't mean "pay for everything". Today's students don't get grants and start their careers saddled with debt. They pay tuition fees. t's a very different world to the one many of us grew up in. However, I think any financial assistance a nrp can provide, they should make arrangements directly with their 'child'.

I'm a mum to a 3 and 9yo and a stepmum to a 20yo. If any of them need support, of any kind, we do so. It's called parenting.

@lowlandLucky but you could have asked as a last resort. It’s called family and you say your dad would have helped. This is very different from the OP’s question, of course. Adults outside of education should be independent but as a last resort we can fall back on family if they are willing.

lowlandLucky - but that's not how university works. Student funding assumes a parental contribution. Students are not given enough money to live on with no help from their parents and only a part time job.

@olliephaunt is correct. The system expects a parental contribution towards uni. However the family courts don’t think the absent parent has to pay - this is a discrepancy which needs updating. The OP’s SS is not at uni. But as a parent I’d think if I am going to pay towards a child at uni (which I do) then I’d also pay for one who was struggling and still doing BTEC aged 20.

This isn’t the 80s and students don’t get grants! Some people haven’t kept up with the changes, including family court judges.

As for helping older offspring, that’s not the issue here but many young people these days are buying their first home with help from the bank of mum and dad. It works both ways, though. I have friends who are supporting elderly parents. I haven’t had to do it myself but would if I had to. And helping my own kids is an investment for the future - emotionally as well as financially.

However the family courts don’t think the absent parent has to pay - this is a discrepancy which needs updating

Whilst I agree absent parents should be helping their children through university if they can, I disagree that it's a discrepancy. It's not just the family courts who think it, it is student finance too. Finance for university is based off the RP's income and their partner's (if they live with one). DH's ex doesn't work. If DH was the RP, DSD would get substantially less money than if she was still living with her mum. It wouldn't be fair for his ex to have to pay half of the parental contribution when she doesn't have as much income.