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.

They're entitled to UC or to get a job at 18-25..

They may not be in a position to move out, but they can contribute to the household.

Yes, that's what I meant, they can work while at Uni.

In theory.

in practice, lots of students try and fail to get work. If this happens, and they can’t contribute, it is currently the RP bearing that costs.

There are many NRPs who acknowledge this and continue to contribute (either directly to the child or to the RP). But if not, then the NRP is stuck with the costs. Unless (s)he makes the DC homeless.

I think there is confusion as to what FE & HE are, FE is anything up and to a level 3 qualification, HE is level 4 and above.

Both youngsters going to uni or to vocational training will have done level 3 in some form, from level 4 (which is then HE) there is almost always some funding mechanism available be it a student loan, bursary or the paid component of an apprenticeship.

We tend to just think of HE as university education, but that is not correct, both of the main non university based programmes, BTEC and City & Guilds go up to beyond bachelors degree level. BTEC runs to Level 7 equivalent to a masters and City and Guild to level 8 equivalent to Doctoral.

Hence CMS ends at this point.

I will of course encourage them to be independent but one has SEN and is not going to be going to uni..he'll scrape some GCSEs I hope. He's not handy and would get bullied by lads on a building site much like he has through school. He'll find something but won't be self sufficient by 18.

For those saying they can claim UC..isn't it pretty poor that we'd rather tax payers support young people than make absent parents accountable? To the pp asking about the 23 yo I mentioned...he can "live" on his Tesco wages because his dad is covering most of his expenses but he couldn't live independently without claiming. His dad would rather he didn't enter that world but the fact that his mum hasn't paid a penny since he was 18 does rankle. Hed be perfectly happy with a little studio flat but we worked it out, even if cheaper parts of the UK, you need to be on about 23k to run that.

Hmm 21 year old DS. In last 5 years he's worked at McDonald's for 2.5 of them since 16 ( min of 16 hours term time and 30 plus in holidays). Then at a nightclub for a year. Now a duty manager job in a hotel ( 20 hour contract, offered more hours virtually every week) .

He's also done 2 years of college and in his 3rd year of uni.

There are jobs out there if you are not too fussy and prepared to work

How would that be fair when, for example Widowed Parent's Allowance ends when the child is 18? Change that as well?

That's been overtaken by Bereavement Support for those who have been widowed after 2017, but what I'm saying is other benefits are only payable to age 18

As someone in their twenties who has a sister also in her twenties who still lives at home, moving out in a few weeks, I disagree.

While I do agree that it’s unrealistic to expect a 18 year old to be fully independent these days, it’s not unrealistic to expect an 18 year old to be earning money and therefore paying towards the household they live in. Neither me or my sister were completely financially independent at 18, but we were both working and so were paying for our own food shopping and could contribute towards the household.

The issue OP is that it comes down to Choice. No RP is required to help their adult children financially.

The reasons why some parents, rps or nrps continue to support their children once adults are complex and each case is different.

The bottom line is that young adults do have access to financial support via other means because they are deemed adults.

Of course, it's not great that the public purse takes over parents, but there has to be a limit. It can be looked from a different perspective. It actually cost the public purse less to support an adult directly than it does when they are a child via UC to their RP in many instances.

But the RP is choosing to continue to financially support the DC post 18. They are not forced to. So why should the NRP be forced to? Or am I missing something?

Given the RPs are supposed to partially fund their DC through uni according to the student loan company, the OP sort of has a point...

Either DC are supposed to be independent from 18 or they're not.

What is the young person doing with the rest of his time? If he has no other job or study, surely he can work more than 16 hours and not rely on his dad's top ups? If Tesco not offering more hours?

As a single parent myself I will (I'm confident my ex will too) support my daughter through uni; but not beyond. When she gets back I expect she will find a job - any job, until she gets her dream role - and start learning to fend for herself.

Given the RPs are supposed to partially fund their DC through uni according to the student loan company, the OP sort of has a point...
They do take it into account from a loan perspective, but they are still not legally expected to pay.

Income is tsken into account but my sister wasent expected to fund her son through uni he got loans ,,she sent him the odd tenner here and there aa did his dad .

As the NRPs of my DHs young adult children if we were paying CMS to DH's ex then we wouldn't be in a position to pay (much more than the CMS would be) to the DC to support them at uni, travelling etc. Also how would you even calculate that, ie how much of the time is the child at home of RP v at uni, or travelling or working away, at NRP or staying at their partners etc.

As a single parent myself I will (I'm confident my ex will too) support my daughter through uni; but not beyond. When she gets back I expect she will find a job - any job, until she gets her dream role - and start learning to fend for herself

With two kids who've graduated with very good degrees in the last two years, I have to say that it did come as a surprise how hard it's been for them to get that first proper job and that has been the experience of all their peers. Good kids, hard working, eloquent, committed.

What has got me kids that first job ahead of many of their peers (still 6-8 months) has been their continuous work and volunteering experience.

Parents funding their kids throughout Uni so their kids don't have to work are really doing them a disservice.

I would encourage all uni kids to do some work, during or in between terms, and if possible, try to do anything relating to their course. Those kids who do have such an advantage when they come out of it.

For those saying they can claim UC..isn't it pretty poor that we'd rather tax payers support young people than make absent parents accountable?

It also means their stamp is covered. I don't think it's great for young adults to be supported by parents and have gaps in their NI record.

Also, it's hard enough getting child support paid if the NRP is unwilling, extending that period just means that RPs who aren't getting it will be picking up the slack longer.

Because child maintenance isn’t a benefit! It’s not bestowed by the NRP on the RP, it’s an acknowledgment of the joint costs of their shared child. Which do not cease at 18/on the last day of school.

How would you feel about the NRP being obligated to pay from 18-21, but not to the RP, to the young adult themselves? Then they can use it to help support themselves. If part of that is paying some rent/keep to the parent they live with, so be it

I am going to encourage my child to do as many vocational courses before going to university to ensure he gets the maximum amount of child-support up to the age of 20.

Before he goes to do a degree and hopefully if he’s already acquired a HND and a HNC he will only need to do one year of actual higher education. And the ex that gives him absolutely no support aside of finances we’ll have to keep paying.
They’ve been playing the game for a long long time
It’s time to learn the rules of the game and make them work for you

Three of mine were at home for some of those years. The agreement was if they were working they paid board, not us wholly subsidising them.Why should it be different for cms recipients?

OP covered this in her first post:

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

But a widowed parent is still a sole parent, and possibly struggling with no other parent to contribute.

I'm not comparing which is 'worse' but don't agree CSM should continue beyond 18.

No it shouldn't be paid into adulthood. In other payments, at 18 an adult no longer receives anything. Why should this be any different.

Noted, and that situation sucks.

I still draw the distinction between CM and a benefit though