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.

Christ, is this going to turn into the, "Your Indian takeaway cost £52?? My Indian takeaway never costs more than £28!" thread.

It’s not neglect if a parent doesn’t financially support their ADULT child OP, come on 😂

My DD did A levels then a vocational course at the same level. No issues with funding

More a case of pointing out £600 on a pair of glasses is OTT. Id be annoyed if the other parent tried to get me to cough up that sort of money for a child's glasses.

She said £400 on glasses and trainers and I don't think she specified how many children that was for.

Someone else said about glasses costing £600

Not to mention that most parents who do make a regular contribution to their child at Uni have certain T & Cs in place and expect at a minimum to be kept updated about academic progress and so on. It's not often handed out willy-nilly with no strings. I cannot imagine that many 18 year olds who have no relationship with one of their parents being very receptive to having that parent keep tabs on them throughout university. Most would rather not take the money.

I have known parents to withdraw or reduce support if they find out their child is out on the lash 5 nights a week and hasn't turned up to lectures in months.

Is the OP wanting parents to be forced to throw good money after bad when Jemima, aged 23, resits 2nd year Media Studies for the 3rd time?

I agree OP, my bills are the same even though two of my children are currently at university. Mortgage, fuel, council tax, water rates etc. Only food is slightly reduced for the duration of the 10 week terms (and during holidays my food bill is much higher than it was when my children were little and my exh paid the same maintenance). Even my one who is living at home post university on a min wage can't contribute to my bills. This is not infantilising my children - it's a fact of life for them (we do live in London). . I am obliged to continue to own the house in order to house my children who are over 18. I don't really have any (moral) choice.

Luckily my court ordered maintenance does continue until they leave FT education and my exH agrees that his children need a home to come back to in their university holidays. fwiw all of them work. So if judges in court ordered financial arrangements are recognising that parents (Resident or non-resident) are going to be financially responsible for their children until they leave university then I think that the CMS should take the same approach.

Your child on a full time minimum wage- i.e. £22k a year- cannot contribute to bills?! He's bringing home £360 a week and can't chuck you £200 a month towards bills? You're being taken for a ride.

If your bills are the same regardless then that proves the point. They aren't causing the rise in bills so you can't claim money for them. You don't have to house them in the holidays, in fact, student accommodation usually is paid for the entire year so if they didn't have a room at home they'd stay there. That's a choice that you and ExH have made, but it is a choice.

Ok that's fine. I'll withdraw all financial support as soon as my son turns 18 in the summer hols. Excellent..thanks for telling me that's ok.

My bills are the same because I can't downsize while I am housing the children (who are my exH's children too). If I wasn't housing the children, I would live in a much smaller, cheaper house, possibly mortgage free.

And my kid on a minimum wage, works in a bar and doesn't do full time hours at all. Earns hardly any money. £200 a month would make no difference to me - it wouldn't suddenly make my mortgage and bills affordable on one salary.

Whether a parent is resident or not, there is nothing compelling them to contribute to higher education costs. It would be a very strange situation if a non-resident parent was compelled by law to contribute to HE costs, but a resident parent (or parents) is/are not.

It's not nice, but it's not neglect by any meaningful (and certainly legal) meaning of the word.

My bills definitely went down when ds went away to university. We use far less heating and hot water for example.

You can downsize. Parents do, quite often, if they can't afford to maintain a larger house. You've chosen not to, and it's commendable that you are your exH have come to an agreement which benefits your adult children, but not mandatory.

There are plenty of full time jobs available in London. If your son didn't have the option of living for free with you, he'd figure it out pretty quick. The fact you would dismiss £200 as making no difference though would indicate that you're not struggling.

As well as thinking non-resident parents should be made to contribute to adult children, do you think it should also be the law that you as “resident parent” should have to house and financially support your son past 18 as opposed to just wanting to help him? Don’t you think that could be incredibly problematic if parents didn’t agree with their adult child’s life choices and didn’t want to support dossing around or drugs, or fund a degree choice they didn’t think was sensible or support money being wasted on rubbish?

I can't see a time when I would ever make my child homeless. They might not have WiFi, spending money or luxuries but yes I would provide the basics unless they were violent or abusive toward me. It seems most NRPs feel no compunction about withdrawing all support and RPs have to choose either to take up even more of the slack than they already have been or boot them out.

I think the reality is that parents will always consider their children kids, whether they are 18, 21 or well into their 30s and 40s.

But the laws exist to do what's fair. No 18 needs CMS in the same way a 2 year old does. There are 18 year olds/20 year olds who work and financially support their disabled parents, for example. It's kind of parents to pay for their children until they're into their 20s and on their feet - but you can't enforce by law that parents have to. CMS is also until 20 if the adult child is still in education, which is really more than fair in my opinion. People in their 20s aren't children.

Saying that you can’t ever imagine a time you’d cut your child off financially isn’t quite the same as feeling that both parents should be legally mandated to support an adult child regardless of whether they want to - and if you think that NRPs should be compelled to pay maintenance to over 18s then it follows that you’d also agree all parents should financially support adult children - else we’re in a bizarre situation where only one small subset of parents / adult children must legally provide maintenance / be maintained.

My adult children live with me but they don't "cost" me anything. They pay a small keep which is more than enough to cover their food and a share of the bills.

The only costs are thungs I treat them to, but I'd probably do that if they didn't live with me.

I think if the political will was there to enforce proper maintenance earlier on then it would be less controversial to suggest that for so long as a young person needs financial support it should come from both, not one parent. That's literally all I'm saying.

If a young person can, as some on here have said, be self sufficient from 18 or 20 that's fantastic. I work with a 23 yo who has moved out, got her own place and is in a full time professional career. I'd love that for my kids, for everyone, but it's not always possible and if her parents hadnt subbed her through uni she wouldn't be doing what she is now. If her parents were separate would it be fair to expect one but not the other to contribute?

RP can opt out.

What just dump their child at Social Services?

Won't happen. Have you got kids? Would you dump a disabled one?

Rp don’t get to opt out . What a ridiculous thing to say🤷‍♂️

1. And depending on what the situation was I would weigh up the pros and cons.