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.

The changes havent gone through yet and when they do its the disabilliy element of UC they are targetting although as i said i think they will have to have a re think about this at least for the severley disasbled who will never be able to work in any capacity

It doesn’t matter that they still live at home. They’re adults. They can work full time, drive, vote, take out credit, claim benefits etc.

Adult children may not be able to afford to move out and the parents allow them to live there still but that doesn’t mean you should be receiving child maintenance for them. The fathers could pay them directly.

I don’t really understand why people are arguing against the NRP having to pay more when tbh the amount of maintenance often paid through CMS would struggle to keep a pet alive let alone cover half the costs of raising a child.

Also you have people on other threads saying benefits need to be cut and yet here you have posters saying instead of forcing the NRP to pay the child should claim benefits instead. it would be far better for society for parents to cover the costs of their child into early adulthood then it would be to put the cost on the state. Doesn’t really make sense tbh

The point is that they are not children ,they are adults in their own right.

I think if they go to Uni aged up to say 21, that the other parent should be forced to contribute towards Uni costs. CMS will end once DD leaves college and then I will have to fund her myself through Uni. (although his £30 a week doesn't go far, it could make a huge difference to DD while studying).

As far as life costs go though, I have made it very clear to DD that there is no such thing as a free ride, and that if not in education, she needs to be working full time and paying a decent amount of lodge money to pay her way.

Yeah they’re adults but potentially in the extreme the NRP has paid less than a few thousand across their whole life and the burden has been on the RP and the state.

People are saying the state shouldn’t be so generous. Well my point is if you got NRP to pay appropriately the state wouldn’t need to pay out so much.

See this is where the whole system falls apart.

Yes, technically they're adults. And I understand your point that perhaps maintenance should stop....but I'd counter that by saying why then does student finance take into account the resident parent's income.

When my DD goes to uni, I lose all the maintenance my ex-husband pays and I'm expected to contribute towards dd's costs as her loan will be reduced based on my income.

I end up significantly worse off and her dad is quids in.

If they're going to include my income in assessing her award, then it should actually take into account both incomes and both should have to help. Or it should treat them all as adults and give the full loan.

This is exactly what I mean.

How CMS works as it is now disproportionally benefits the NRP and excuses them from their duty which is then transferred on RP and where necessary, the state.

The fact that student finance take into account parents income after 18 when they’re living away from home is absolutely ludicrous and needs to be stopped. They’re applying for loans and grants BECAUSE they don’t have any money and are students ffs.

No. No parent is obliged to support a child through FE, it's a choice. Some young adults don't go to University because they can't afford it; others have to work through their degree. The loan is determined on the household income of the child. The income of the NRP will not be considered. If this includes CM then that might simply make them entitled to a lower loan, so would not benefit them anyway.

An adult is expected to work out their own finances and if a parent can help them out a bit to take the pressure off then that is great, but should not be an expectation.

There's absolutely no reason for an adult who has graduated at 21 not to be entirely independent of their parents. If it makes sense for their parent and them to live together then that is all well and good, but it's not the responsibility of the other parent to fund this.

If a child is in higher education, the government considers that the resident parent should still be supporting them. The entire student loan system is built on this assumption.

And this means that the child's student loan entitlement may be seriously affected by the fact that the resident parent has a new partner, even if that new partner isn't willing to support them at all. Surely the non resident parent should have more responsibility to step up than an unrelated partner of the resident parent.

I suppose this depends a lot on the NRP's income, but an NRP earning an average salary of £35k would have a maximum liability of £350pm.

Over 18 years, that's £75,600. Then there's another £21,600 over 18 years in child benefit, so on average, IF CMS is applying their own rules and chasing payments effectively, that's £97,200. I can find figures ranging from £220,000 up to £290,000 as the "average cost of raising a child" but living outside London, my daughter doesn't cost me anything like that. I feel like £350 would easily cover half the cost of raising DD.

It’s interesting isn’t it? That your issue isn’t the young person should receive any support? It’s that the person who was made career sacrifices. Paid more than 10% of their income towards the child’s well-being and comfort for past 18 years shouldn’t be able to gleen any benefit whatsoever from the situation. Even if that indirectly hugely benefits the NRP’s child.

I could give you a breakdown of my costs, but if you doubled the 350 to 700 that would not touch the sides for raising my teenager. Obviously it depends on the different standards of living and levels of comfort but I don’t see why my boy should have any less because his parents are apart. Than he would’ve when the decision was made by both parents to bring him into the world.

I take it your daughter is not in nursery then.

Well, I obviously can't speak for your household or what you think constitutes a good life. My child is only 5 and I recognise there are going to be some additional costs when she is a teenager.

However, currently, she has a happy life, with lots of extra-curricular activities, nice clothes, lovely presents for her birthday and Christmas, lots of days out and holidays. She doesn't have designer shoes, private school or a pony.

I've worked out that accounting for everything I can think of, including holidays and presents which I don't think should necessarily be covered by CM, she costs me £650 pm.

Not anymore no. The time that a child is in nursery full time and not receiving any funded hours is quite a short span of time. We spent about £16k on 3 days a week, term time only, for 2 years, then she turned 3 and got 30 hours funded. Then it was 150 a month in top up fees for 18 months before she started school, so in total we spent about £19k on nursery fees.

Including that, I'm estimating the total cost of raising her to 18 (not accounting for future inflation) to be around £160k. As I said I can't speak for other households or living in London but I think the costs people claim for raising their children are often grossly inflated.

Afraid that you don’t get to dictate what people post about on a public forum OP 🤷‍♀️

It’s the CHILD maintenance service, not the PERSON maintenance service. Once that child reaches working age, they should be getting a job. I had a job in 6th form, so did DS and DSS has been told he will need to in
order to pay for the fuel/insurance for the car we’re getting him for his 17th birthday.

Support has to stop at some point. This is why we’re ending up with a generation of snowflakes who can barely even make a doctor’s appointment without mum doing it for them.

Teen hobbies and sports can be several hundred a month depending on what they are..it doesn't have to be "posh" like a pony or skiing to cost £££ plus kit, travel, entry fees to tournaments. Teens need phones and laptops for school ..not latest iphones brand new but even 2nd hand android is £150+ plus contracts. They eat huge amounts. Fuel / bus fares etc. Adult priced shoes and clothes. Doesn't have to be designer for it to be £££. The Times report at the weekend said leaving off childcare, teens are by far the most expensive stage. CMS is woefully inadequate in most cases but again, keeping it focused on my OP..the point about uni funding is well made. The state absolute assumes parental contribution but factors in step-parents income here and not the NRPs whereas they don't include a step parent's income for an NRPs CMS calculation. I'm not saying they should, but it's not consistent and leaves the NRP obligation free. To those blithely saying you don't have to contribute post 18, legally and technically you may be right but morally and in reality, that's not what happens in the vast majority of cases.

@JamSandwich27 oh bugger off with "I don't get to dictate"...I'm trying to keep the discussion focused on the OP issue and not get distracted. Obviously people can post on what they like but then the thread loses focus and becomes a mess of "whataboutery".

I spend £150 per week on hobbies for my 2. As part of my divorce I get half of this on top of CMS , when he stops paying me; he’ll give them an allowance. This isn’t a hard one. We don’t need CMS payments, we need dads to be dads and older teens / young adults to be responsible, get jobs and live within their means.

That's quite specific. I don't think most ordinary teens are paying out several hundred a month on sports. My phone and contract is £40 a month, I didn't pay £150 for it and it's perfectly good.

But back to your original point. It is based on the household income of the child. I agree it doesn't necessarily make sense. Parental income shouldn't really matter with regards to student finance because having the income doesn't necessarily indicate willingness to contribute.

Indeed...and most people I think would think it was a pretty poor showing if a parent said to their teen that they wouldn't contribute (if possible) to allow them to study, but apparently of you don't live with your child then it's perfectly ok.

That's not correct. It continues until they are 20 if they are in approved education. Approved education being:

• A levels or similar, for example Pre-U, International Baccalaureate
• T Levels
• Scottish Highers
• NVQs and most vocational qualifications up to level 3 - excluding intermediate and advanced apprenticeships
• home education - if it started either before your child turned 16 or after 16 if they have special educational needs and disabilities
• traineeships in England

(must be accepted onto the course before they turn 19)

Child Maintenance stops if your child starts studying an ‘advanced’ course, such as a university degree or BTEC Higher National Certificate, or if a course is paid for by an employer.

(source: gov.uk)

It might be a pretty poor showing, but it's not a legal obligation as CMS is. You can't say one parent can choose how much and when to give their adult child money but the other parent is legally mandated to do so. If we're going to insist on the NRP paying CMS to the adult child's living costs then the RP would surely need to have the same legal obligation?

A good NRP who has a good relationship might well make his/her own voluntary contribution, directly to the child. It's morally the right thing to do but not something that should be legally enforceable.