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.

So people who can't afford fhe £600 for these glasses are telling their children that that they're only worth the cheapest and nastiest of everything?!
Really?! Ouch!

No, that's not what I said at all.

But if I had the money to pay for that, I would. And I would consider it a normal part of the cost of raising my children. The same way dental treatment is part of the cost of raising my children, regardless of the fact that some people can't afford dental treatment.

If you can afford to pay for these things but you choose not to and tell your child to save their pocket money, you are telling them they're only worth the cheapest and nastiest of everything though.

I'd rather teach my kids that anyone who was shallow enough to judge someone for needing to wear glasses wasn't worth knowing or engaging with.

Well, that's nice, but I live in the real world and if I can do something relatively simple to avoid making my teenager an object of ridicule, I will.

We don't need to learn all lessons the hard way.

And it's not merely "wearing glasses". Perhaps you have no idea quite how hideous high prescription lenses look without any thinning. Most people have never seen them.

Absolutely. Glasses, braces that are less conspicuous etc can cost hundreds. An nrp who rarely sees the kids and certainly not on a day to day basis won't get the fallout that might come with low self esteem, taunting and teasing. An RP will and if they can afford it, will do their best to mitigate. It's all very laudable to say "don't care about it" but most people do actually and it's not a terrible moral failing. It's just one example of where RPs tend to cop a much greater financial cost.

Of course they do if the ex is not covering their share fair share.

For info, Asda prices include lens thinning. It includes everything but transition to dark lenses. The lenses are exactly the same then those bought are more expensive retailers, they all come from the same places.

Learning to shop around is something I taught my teens from the first time they asked for something expensive.

Good for you, how wonderfully clever you are, and how spectacularly you miss the point.

Absolutely this, but some people think letting their children have something nicer is a terrible moral failing.

My mum was a little bit like that with some things, but not everything. And had very fixed ideas about things. She always used to say that when she was growing up she was never allowed fancy clothes, but her mum always thought buying good quality school shoes was important, so their shoes always came from Clarks even if it was expensive. So she applied the same principle to me when I was a teenager and refused to listen when I told her that the Clarks shoes she wanted to buy me rubbed and hurt my feet. Even when I got actual blisters on my heels she thought I was doing it deliberately to get a cooler air of shoes. So I did end up saving my pocket money to buy a pair of Kickers for school. Sometimes parents take the principle of not spoiling their kids to absurd extremes. It's OK to let your teenager have an input into what they wear. It's not going to turn an otherwise nice kid into a brat.

OP in your example, you could end up in quite a mad scenario where young parents in their early 20s are paying CMS to their own kids, also still claiming CMS from their parents 😳

It needs to stop at 18 really. It's there for children, not adults who can't get jobs. It's kind for parents to help out their jobless kids in these circumstances but they don't have to

I think a "mad scenario" is the idea that it's better to boot out a pregnant / young mum / young person into a grubby cheap rental and have her claim £££ in benefits than have her live in her home and receive support from both parents. I'm quite happy for the payment go direct to the young person if relations are such that the nrp can't bear to hand over money to their ex anymore.

Most of this thread has been about what ought to happen in an ideal world where everyone trots off to uni or a job at 18 and gets a job alongside studying and is self sufficient and that is not the world we are living now. Even in the last 3 years it's got harder so those even more recent experience anecdata are not thinking about the reality now. The fact is that the vast majority of younger people now will need some help. It should come from parents not the state where possible and if so that should be both parents, not one. I have listened and read all posts but no one has yet convinced me that an nrp is not just as morally responsible for their kid post 18 as the rp . Unless we are seriously advocating that all 18 year olds are turfed out to fend for themselves, the RP will continue to support so the NRP should to, in some form.

I don’t think many people think the NR parent isn’t responsible , I think they just think that is should go straight to the kids. which is exactly where my ex will pay the money to when our kids are grown and exactly where my husband will when his are grown. I think there are lots of resident parents who need the money for their basic home budget and that is not a nr problem. ( I said all this twice already on this thread !)

The way you come across is that you think you are entitled to still be paid for choices that you make re your kids as they get older , that’s not fair and not the case.

My next door neighbour has 19yo twins. Both are in the military and one is on deployment in Iraq. I would consider them fully adult and no in need for parental support.

I explained upthread that I spend far more on my kids than my ex..not really out of choice, but because he pays CMS on the dot and I pay for what two active teens needs which is far more than 20% of my pay..and ex and I get paid similar. My personal expenditure including mortgage and utilities are well within my scope and if I lived alone I would not need his money. Of course I make choices for my kids because he is not there, having chosen to leave for ow ten years ago. So I now pay far more for our joint kids than he does because that's what HE chose. I have no objections to it going directly to kids though I would argue that CMS could go up to 20-22if the child is still living at "home" and earning less than x in part time work while studying of on an apprenticeship wage. Given that CB can continue until 20 i think there is acknowledgement that childhood does not end at 18 for many.

A parent supporting a young adult whilst they study isn’t always possible. It was completely normal and expected from me and all of my peers to have a weekend or evening job once we lost school to ease the burden of our financial needs from our parents.

That's great, really it is. But unless you're advocating military service for all, not really an answer to the issue.

Kindly though, some young people are supporting themselves and their own families in their early 20s.

It doesn't then make sense for the grandparents to be paying to supposedly keep parents? I understand kids stay at home longer nowadays - but they have the ability to earn, the ability to contribute, leave home etc and many do. You have to have a cut off for child maintenance and 18 or 21 in full-time education is reasonable imo.

Good for you, how wonderfully clever you are, and how spectacularly you miss the point
Or maybe you did! Some parents are their worse enemy not teaching their kids to become adults and independent by taking a victimised attitude to their situation.

Young adults need to learn to start fending for themselves and that starts with processing that they will have to find ways to get their essential needs met cheap to start with. If I was an nrp told that I had to continue to pay maintenance to Mum so that darling 18yo can get £400 glasses, I told them to get lost. And I was a single rp for years without ever getting a penny in maintenance.

No. How long would it go on for instead? 18? 21? 25?! At some point adults need to stand on their own 2 feet. I somehow managed to get a 2:1, work part time in term time and full time in holidays. There have been student loans for a long time now, plus bursaries, scholarships etc

Sorry meant 21, 25 or 30. As it goes on until 18

Child maintenance can be claimed by a child over 18 in full time education but they have to claim it themselves through the courts. I had a close friend who did that at university. It’s up to 25 in Scotland and similar in England.

That’s not correct. Parents must support their children in full time education up to the age of 25. They can offer to do that by having the child live with them but that won’t be acceptable in every case.

You can claim CMS up to their 20th Birthday IF they’re in education and it’s not above A levels.

My Son’s Father who hasn’t met him has just had an increase in the amount, but I see he’s put in a mandatory reconsideration. He will probably guess it’s over at 18th or until September before university. It’s crossed my mind that although he has good A level results he could defer university learn a language and do some unless GCSEs or equivalent at the local college and take a year out and continue to claim all child benefits and of course CMS. As he has a disability and needs a bit longer to mature it might do him some good. It’s up to him of course, but it’s an option on the table. I suspect absent Daddy won’t be happy if this is a path chosen.

So it doesn’t end 18 it ends 20th Birthday if your child doesn’t process from A level in standard of education.

https://www.thorntons-law.co.uk/knowledge/students-to-sue-parents-for-university-fees

eg see this link. Children at university under 25 years old can sue parents for maintenance if they don’t provide it voluntarily

If you genuinely can’t afford to support a child over 18 at university then you won’t be forced to same as if that child was under 18. People on mn seem to think it’s optional though- it isn’t. Morally you should be supporting your child in education if you can and legally you have to.