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.

I'm glad there's a legal remedy but a shame that we have to ask young people to sue a parent in order to achieve appropriate support. The general consensus seems to be that I am wrong and that it's perfectly reasonable for an NRP to step back at some arbitrary legal point, regardless of how much support the person still requires and is given by the RP. Given that we don't arrest or even barely criticise non paying NRPs for neglect but RPs would be if they failed to feed and clothe their kids, it's not surprising. Disappointing but not surprising.

That's just blatantly false.

Since the RP is usually the woman, it probably comes down to misogyny.

Eh? Male NRPs who don't pay their way are regularly chastised. There is even the term "deadbeat Dad" especially for such feckless men. It doesn't stop them unfortunately but it's not true to say there is no societal judgement.

We do need better mechanisms to ensure people meet the requirements already set out in law. It's absurd you can go self-employed and pay barely anything, or the number of NRPs owing thousands and nothing happens to them.

I would harshly judge any parent who decides that they are going to refuse to support their child through university, of any gender and regardless of if the child lives with them. We will be making sure we contribute when my SD goes to university if that is her choice. I don't think we should enshrine supporting adults into law though.

Another consideration- if this was to become the law, you would definitely see some of the worst parents putting their children under pressure to leave education as early as possible, or even sabotaging their education so they don't get to university.

I bought a pair of varifocals with auto tint and scratch resistant lenses etc. £89

I also wear glasses. Paid under £100 from glasses direct for thin varifocals with tint.

I don't think they actually have to. The loan students get may depend on income of RP but there is no way to force parents to hand over the money they didn't get instead

I hope you have deep pockets because the government will not fund multiple courses at the same level. We have apprentices at work and there are rules as to how their vocational courses are funded.

Aliment is specific to Scotland only and the link even states the student is expected to support themselves as well.

What about the disabled?

Why should the non resident parent get to opt out if the resident parent still has to be a carer?

See the link I posted above. That’s the law

I agree OP. Its 20 though not 18.

Also depending on the circumstances you can do a Schedule 1 court application to force support to continue.

They don't have to. They should do, but no-one will make them. Disabled adults have to apply for their own benefits and housing. If they can't, a parent will often take on the role but they don't have to- the council has to appoint someone if they won't.

@MrsSunshine2b they may be condemned on here but not widely, publicly, down the pub, by their mates. Not by the courts and CMS either who don't use the powers they have to enforce. There are whole sub-reddits on how to avoid paying and encouraging men to hide assets. It's pathetic.

The student may be expected to work part time as part of the courts assessment of maintenance. But that doesn’t mean the parents are not liable. They are. There are similar provisions in England (aliment is a Scots law word that means maintenance).

In Scotland, not in the rest of the UK.

But in reality mothers continue providing care, sacrificing their own careers and fathers, and in 99% of cases it is fathers, get off scot free.

Local authorities simply don't have the resources and young disabled adults are essentially abandoned.

Also I should say that (while at university myself) I assisted people who sued their parents while at university and they were awarded maintenance. So it certainly isn’t false. It absolutely is the law that you must support your child in full time education even if you don’t want to.

In Scotland.

its the case in the rest of the uk too. The children’s act can be used in England for example.

@Userlosername how was their relationship after 'the suing'? Am assuming this only covered wealthy parents who could easily pay, but didn't want to?

Would parents on MW be forced to take on debt to pay for their child's education choice?

And England and wales. NI - I don’t know

They were not wealthy parents- one was a teacher for example. Same as cms is not just payable from the wealthy. Obviously income is assessed as are needs when calculating child maintenance.

but generally they were separated parents anyway (all absent fathers in my personal experience) so there wasn’t a relationship there to damage (or it was already damaged). But the law requires all parents to support their children- they didn’t have to be separated.

The Children's Act covers children.

There is no legal obligation for a parent to fund a child at University in the UK, except in Scotland. I see no further point in arguing the point, it is a simple fact. If you can point me to the part of the Children's Act saying that parents must maintain their children until 25 then please go ahead.

One parent can sometimes obtain a court order to compel the other parent to contribute but that's not the norm.

https://www.mishcon.com/news/a-level-students-university-funding-and-schedule-1-applications

"The decided cases on applications by, or on behalf of children over the age of 18 show that:

• Unless there are "special" or "exceptional" circumstances (such as disability), children are highly unlikely to succeed in a claim under Schedule 1 for financial provision, except during their dependency and for their education.
• There is no absolute rule that the relevant age is 18 rather than 21, Schedule 1 does not preclude a settlement extending into adult years. However, ordinarily the Court will not make an order extending beyond 18 or full time education including University education.
• The Court will ordinarily recognise a child taking a 'gap year', whether after school or after university, or choosing to defer their attendance at university and provisions to this effect should be clearly agreed in any settlement.

Therefore for a child of separated parents who intends to commence University but may have problems with funding, careful consideration should be given to whether an application should be made, timing and whether the application should be made by them, or a parent on their behalf."

Please direct me to case law where a parent in England was forced to pay their child's university living expenses?