CMS age limit

[RhaenysRocks]

First of all , can I plead that we keep this thread focused on the issue at hand, not all the other myriad "what about x" issues with CMS.
Currently, CMS ends when a child is 18 or leaves full time FE (but not HE). Given that very few people are now able to be financially independent of parents until at least early twenties, especially with the current situation with rents, zero hours contracts, difficulties for young people to get full time, decent employment, AIBU to argue that the rules around CMS should change. The devil is in the detail of course, but realistically, many RPs will be hosting their adult children for 3-5 years longer than traditionally was the case. If the NRP is not willing or able to have them stay 50/50 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 really don't want a bunfight or a "I left at 16 and never looked back". It's 2025, the world has changed and even the brightest, most driven kids are often still at home beyond the age of CB.

Clue is in the name, Child Maintenance

I agree but I think it might be difficult to administrate.

I would perhaps change it to 21 years old or until the child is working at a certain (low) income. Maybe the equivalent of 16hours a week at minimum wage similar to free child are hours. That would cover most of a first degree.

No.

I disagree.

1. No parent is forced to house their child.
2. At that age they are the contributors. The AC should be paying a decent amount to the parent housing them

Why should the nrp still hold that responsibility when the rp doesn't? That's why there are loans and why most courses, even medicine, allow time for students to get a PT job. Many do. Why would it be different for young adults whose parents don't live together any longer?

You can pontificate all you the the child is now an sdult and csn get a job or even claim UC to support themselves

Adults who can legally drive, buy alcohol and tobacco, vote, take out credit, be called to jury duty and get married don't need child maintenence. They should be contributing to their living costs themselves.

If the rp can't pay rent for an extra room, they need to downsize and the young adult needs to look for their own accommodation, again, like the majority of uni students still have to do.

They dont hsve too they are choosing too.

Definitely not. Parents should be doing everything they can to help a child understand choices and routes into FE/work from a much younger age so there are no surprises or dead ends.

Your reason for raising the age for CMS sounds like an expansion of childhood into early 20s which wouldn’t do children any favours.

A strong work ethic, whether that’s towards study or a job will be much more beneficial than a soft landing.

Nope

Dads should just pay their kids direct after this ( either the same amount or an allowance of sorts ) There is absolutely no reason why they should continue to pay the mother.

I think the crucial thing is here is far far too many mums use this money to survive , I’ve only ever used mine to thrive ( the kids I mean not me personally!) we would be perfectly fine without his money. Relying on it is dangerous and irresponsible - it does stop and will stop and what happens then?!

No because adult children will either be at university and likely living away from home the majority of the year, thus the bills at “home” will be significantly less than if they lived there full time. Utilities, food, council tax etc for the adult child won’t be applicable.
And out of term time they should be working and contributing to the household.

Or they should be working and covering some costs themselves i.e. board, mobile phone costs, petrol, increase in council tax for them living there if applicable.

Most parents I know support their kids through university but I don’t think they should be obligated to keep paying the resident household child maintenance. University is a choice, not a right and adults should be expected to contribute to their cost of living which includes when they’re home outside of term time.

Interesting responses so far. Most seem to have not addressed the changing world we live in. How many 18-25 year olds do you know that are fully independent? Yes the legal age is 18 for many things but that's ignoring the reality that will now live in.

No most peoole just dont sgree with you.

they don’t need to be fully independent, their RP just needs to be!!!

I'm actually thinking more about FE routes rather than uni, though I would dispute that they are away most of the time. Uni terms are only 10 weeks and if you're in halls, you don't have a 12 month contract. Jobs are not as easy to come by as they once were. Realistically, most RPs are not going to chuck their offspring out until they are ready for it and NRPs know that.

No it shouldn’t HAVE to carry on further into adulthood it needs to be a choice and every family is different

Age of parents play a factor. If you have children later some families may be collecting their pension by the time their child is in their 20s

health. Some may be unable to work or work a little but being forced to continue child maintenance could cause many problems

Other children. There may be big age gaps between children. It doesn’t make sense that those who have record child maintenance continue receiving it in their 20s when they can work on help themselves financially where there may be younger children who are in school and can’t contribute who will suffer

The list goes on. The point is it’s child maintenance and choice be decided amicably between the parents in each family. If continuing to pay doesn’t cause hardship then of course you should continue but if it’s not possible then it’s not possible. Many families that are together are not able to continue funding adult children so why should NRP be forced that burden

@RhaenysRocks I understand it may be difficult for 18-25 year olds to be fully independent and run their own households. However, even on a minimum wage job they could cover their own expenses within the household such as contributing towards utility costs, food etc.

The resident parent’s household would have all these costs whether the adult child was there or not, the only difference in costs is the extra costs of having them when they’re there I.e. the increase in utilities and food.

CM is not meant to “top up the resident household”, it’s to cover the cost of the child. The child once an adult should be covering most of this when living at home.

Absolutely disagree. It’s child maintenance, not, child maintenance that turns into adult maintenance because they are still living at home and can’t find a job.

It would be total infantilisation of adults.

I agree with you, OP. Uni financing assumes a parental contribution (and my understanding is that if the RP is cohabiting with a new partner, the income of the household not just the parents is considered).

There are very few 18 year olds out there earning enough to rent a room in a shared house without parental help (and parent is probably guarantor even if that’s the case)

keeping an element of contribution until the child is 21/has left uni/is earning more than x per week makes sense.

Most seem to have not addressed the changing world we live in
I think it's the opposite. The new world means that the more a young adult can build work experience, the better the chance for them to get a job after graduation.

My children have both graduated in the past few years. Both did 'competitive and difficult' degrees, both worked during the three years. Then again, both worked during their A levels too.

They learn to manage on a tight budget. The best lesson to gain during these three years to prepare them to the world they live in. Both found good FT jobs much sooner than both their peers, peers who didn't have much work experience, fully supported still by their parents.

I am curious: those of you utterly against this - do you/will you charge your 19 year olds full market rent and bills? Did you/will you make them homeless if they can’t pay?

Did you seriously just suggest 50/50 custody for an adult child in their 20s?

I don’t think anyone is saying chuck the child/children out just simply not continuing with a set amount of money every money regardless of circumstances