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.

If their parents have failed to teach them independence then that’s entirely on them.

YABU. Parents are not legally responsible for their children past 18.

If you want child support to cover kids past 18, then you need to change the above. Parents will have to be entirely responsible for their kids past 18 too. Benefits would need to pay past 18. Parents would continue to have obligations towards this young adult past 18, etc.

I don't necessarily disagree with that entirely, because I too see the state of things - someone of 18 cannot afford to move out and stand in their own two feet the same way the previous generations did. But you'll have to job convincing people, because people stop wanting to be responsible for their kids long before 18 anyway (when they're no longer cute). People have kids to enjoy the small years, and lose interest as they get older. You won't find many people who want to take responsibility for or even really help adult children.

I see your point - yes if the government is washing their hands of supporting under 22yos who can't earn a living, then they are obviously saying that parental responsibility is supposed to be in place until 22 years, in which case if parents aren't together, there should be legal mechanisms to force both parents to contribute equally to costs pertaining to their 18-22yo offspring.

But “not chucking them out” is effectively giving them money - free or subsidised rent and bills.

if they have made stacks of money child modelling or whatever and move out into their own pad, then the RP is no longer paying for them so has no need for assistance from the NRP.

Surely for most people you don’t need to charge them full market rent and bills to cover the lack of maintenance? Maintenance is meant to be covering the non RP half of the cost of the child. I doubt an adult child is costing a RP in London (expensive rent which is why I’m using London) £1800 a month. As others have said, mortgage or rent will be similar whether the child is there or not. Heating/water/other bills I’m sure the child could cover by working.

@SheilaFentiman no one is saying charge them full market rent or make them homeless fgs.

Most of the household bills will applicable to the resident parent whether the adult child lived there or not! Adult children can cover their costs, i.e. the increase in the bills by living there such as food for themselves and increase in utilities.

Unless the resident parent was planning to downsize the moment the adult child moved out then “rent” or mortgage costs for that bedroom is irrelevant anyway.

Speaking from experience, housing an adult child really does not cost much more than if they weren’t here if they buy their own food. My bills are the same whether they’re here or not.

But you'll have to job convincing people, because people stop wanting to be responsible for their kids long before 18 anyway (when they're no longer cute). People have kids to enjoy the small years, and lose interest as they get older. You won't find many people who want to take responsibility for or even really help adult children.

Really?? You think parents get bored of kids once they aren’t cute?? What’s your evidence, out of interest?

I think half the problem is parents infantilising their offspring though and this would only further that.

At 18 (or at least after they’ve finished that school year), they should absolutely be in work or at university. They should be paying their parent board in my opinion or have moved elsewhere.

I see too many posts on here about fully grown adults skulking about at their parents paying nothing and contributing nothing.

There is a point where FE becomes HE even in a non uni route, I lecture in a college, not a university, a young person may join us to do a National Diploma in art, which takes 2 years and is an FE programme, they will graduate from that usually at 18 or 19 depending on how they started (some come direct from GCSE, some study a year of First Diploma after year 11). If then they stay on to do the HND programme they fall into the remit of HE, and in fact can, at that point get a student loan, as in common with many colleges our HE provision is run in association with a university and the HND can either be terminal in itself of be the first 2 years of a 3 year BA, but you can get a student loan, and decide not to progress to the degree year.

If you look at other non uni options, for example if you train to be an electrician, the first part of the normal programme of study is college based and falls under FE, onwards from that it is apprenticeship and a work release programme, falling under HE and having a wage attached.

Effectively, once the programme moves into the HE section, it usually comes with financial support of some kind, be it a loan or wages.

Hence CMS ends after FE.

No that's ridiculous. If capable of working, an adult should be paying rent. If rp doesn't want rent, then they shoulder it themselves but it's a choice they make and like a previous poster said, the bills don't double.
I do believe student finance should be overhauled if they go to uni though and not dependent on a parents wage.
Child maintenance up until age 20 for non advanced is already pushing it too far in my view... allows kids to keep resitting a levels and avoid making adult choices (in some cases needed). Is it any wonder we have a generation of young people thinking the world owes them a living

dreading my CM payment stopping the minute he finishes education. DS is hoping to go on an apprenticeship at 16 so payments will stop then

A non resident pays a contribution linked to their earnings towards their children not full rent and all bills
When my son starts working ill expect him to pay a fair contribution and support himself.

There definitely should be some kind of process for when that 18 year old goes to university. Student loans are based on parental income, or at least the rp (and their partner) and that rp is expected to top up to the full loan amount. Yet cm stops and the nrp doesn’t need to contribute at all! They should be contributing equally to their adult child directly.

Apart from anything else, it would create a totally bizarre system where a married couple and a single mum could all perfectly legally ask their 18-year-olds to move out, or refuse to fund university; but a divorced dad would be legally on the hook to provide financial support.

Mandating adults to support the lifestyles of other adults is unworkable and daft. The student loan system should be detached from parental income instead, so students can borrow more.

A household with an additional person in it costs more. Whether that’s loss of single person council tax discount, additional bills etc.

The NRP contributes to these costs before the child turns 18/leaves FE. The costs don’t disappear the day after that. Otherwise you could (and I’m sure some NRPs do!) make the same argument about not downsizing and bills not mattering much at any age, really.

Jobs are not as easy to come by as they once were
So you give up looking for one and expect mum and dad to pay for you forever? Jobs don't get easier to get the older you are. A degree alone is not worth much without some work experience, so the earlier you do get one, the higher the chances. You can use the experience to show how you can focus on two things and do both well.

Is this what you are telling your kids? That they are victims of growing up in tough times, and it's not their fault and teaching them a victim mentality rather then telling them that the world they live in is what it is and therefore they better get on with it so they don't end up left behind?

The ‘child’, ie young adult should be working and contributing to the household bills (or claiming benefits).

What do you mean by survive? Paying for shelter and food? Why should the mother not use the money for that?

This. And will probably sound archaic here, but some of the young people in their early 20s that I know/hear of through colleagues/family are not accepting of the house share with 2nd hand furniture that we had in the early 00s.
They are expecting and only accepting the insta ready perfect looking palace, and not wanting to have to do the waitressing/bar work that were the graft then.

But he will be earning as soon as he starts the apprenticeship so should be paying you rent / contributions to stay at home.

My 17 year old gets nothing because he isn’t in education - however hasn’t managed a job so I get nothing for him . Can’t claim Uc or child maintenance.

He has additional needs before anyone starts judging him .

The student loan system should be detached from parental income instead, so students can borrow more.

That would have the value of consistency!

It’s a dangerous game to ever rely on anyone else for the basics. i don’t understand why you’d want to? From the start it is very clear when payments will stop, so unless you’ve got a plan for then , you’re risking all your security!

it’s madness to do so. I want to live in my house when the kids are grown and I certainly wouldn’t expect my ex to fund that ( though I’m sure many do have that expectation!)

I'm not saying don’t use the money for that, I’m saying have enough money to still have shelter and food when it stops!

Is he not entitled to PIP ?

And that's ok, I'm here for a discussion, not a "win". To the pp who says about the RP being independent...I'm not sure where that's going. I'm talking about an RP still supporting an adult child while the NRP stops doing so. The CMS I receive goes into my general pot but I pay far more than 20% of my income on them. I would be way better off if they lived elsewhere and I didn't receive CMS. Im perfectly independent thanks, but they aren't.