Does my brother still have to pay children maintainer for his 17 year old working son?

[Nikki037297]

My brother has a son who is 17 and is working part time and at college part time. His ex is demanding money as my brother is just going back to work after being on the sick after an accident at work and breaking a bone in his neck and not being able to work for around 20 months now. He’s googled it and can’t find much out and it seams a bit complicated and never mentions the child working and what would happen in those circumstances. Does anyone know ?

Interesting that he was able to house, feed and clothe himself in that time

How do you know what he was able to do or not? He may be living with o/p, been suppurted by a new partner, been in hospital, on disability benefits.

Are you seriously saying that this injured man who can’t work, should make himself homeless, starve, and wander about naked in order to pay child maintenance?

@TheApexOfMyLife

And pay some sort of contribution for the past two years when he has not been working.

Surely it depends on how much he has been earning when he was off sick.
Parents who have very little income don’t pay CM for very good reasons. We have no idea if that guy falls (or not) in that category.

Having said that, yes he should still be paying CM according to his earnings.

Just curious

What’s the “very good reasons” for not providing for your children because u have very little income??

OP yes your brother should still be providing for his child if he is still in college u say he’s there part time but full time education is classed as 12 hours or more so it may seem to your brother it’s part time but it’s not. Morally he should WANT to provide for him he’s still a child but that’s another matter

It seems the pitchfork mob has come over from AIBU. Such a shame. Wind your necks in please. OP is asking about what her brother's legal position is.

The answer, as some have correctly posted, is to be found in the Child Support (Meaning of Child and New Calculation Rules) (Consequential and Miscellaneous Amendment) Regulations 2012 (SI 2012/2785) which amends s55 of the 1991 Act.

It states:

(1) Schedule 1 (meaning of “child” for the purposes of the Act) to the Child Support (Maintenance Assessment Procedure) Regulations 1992 is amended as follows.

(1) A person satisfies such conditions as may be prescribed for the purposes of section 55(1)(of the Act if that person satisfies any of the conditions in sub-paragraphs (2) and (3).

(2) The person is receiving full-time education (which is not advanced education)—

(a) by attendance at a recognised educational establishment; or

(b) elsewhere, if the education is recognised by the Secretary of State.

(3) The person is a person in respect of whom child benefit is payable.”.

s55 states:
(1) In this Act, “child” means (subject to subsection (2)) a person who—

(a) has not attained the age of 16, or

(b) has not attained the age of 20 and satisfies such conditions as may be prescribed.

So, as has been explained earlier, if the course is full time he cannot be compelled to pay maintenance. The child's income is irrelevant. If he is in full-time scondary education then maintenance is payable until his 20th birthday.

@Nomoreusernames1244

Interesting that he was able to house, feed and clothe himself in that time

How do you know what he was able to do or not? He may be living with o/p, been suppurted by a new partner, been in hospital, on disability benefits.

Are you seriously saying that this injured man who can’t work, should make himself homeless, starve, and wander about naked in order to pay child maintenance?

As I said earlier it is impossible to judge this sort of thing without all the information.

We don't know if this was his thoughts or his sisters.
We don't know if he is asking for a chance to get paid before he is expected to hand over the money.
We don't know if he had paid way over CMS limits for years until his accident or if he has always paid and done the minimum.
We don't know if he has actually started back at work yet and we don't know if he has been paid yet.
We don't know if he has had a huge settlement for the accident and is rolling in it.

As I said in an earlier post if he had been living with his ex and his child for the last 20 months he might not have been able to contribute much more than would cover his own food. I know this as my husband was made disabled (permanently in his case) when I had a 10 day old baby and 3 other children. I went back to work so he was only entitled to SSP which wasn't exactly alot. I can't imagine that he'd have been able to give me anything if we had been living separately.

I'd need more information to make a judgement. At the end of the day children need support from both parents but if the dad has been on benefits they won't give him extra as a NRP as far as I know and we all know benefits aren't generous.

Lots of teenagers do part time jobs whilst still studying at school and college. I consider that to be a bit of extra pocket money for them...not a get out clause so a non resident parent can avoid paying maintenance.

What’s the “very good reasons” for not providing for your children because u have very little income??

Errrrr, the fact that you have so little income that you're not able to provide for them? How, if you get SSP of £100 per week do you imagine that a person can also adequately provide for a child who doesn't live with them?

He should be paying until the child leaves education! What a dickhead

@Collaborate

It seems the pitchfork mob has come over from AIBU. Such a shame. Wind your necks in please. OP is asking about what her brother's legal position is.

The answer, as some have correctly posted, is to be found in the Child Support (Meaning of Child and New Calculation Rules) (Consequential and Miscellaneous Amendment) Regulations 2012 (SI 2012/2785) which amends s55 of the 1991 Act.

It states:

(1) Schedule 1 (meaning of “child” for the purposes of the Act) to the Child Support (Maintenance Assessment Procedure) Regulations 1992 is amended as follows.

(1) A person satisfies such conditions as may be prescribed for the purposes of section 55(1)(of the Act if that person satisfies any of the conditions in sub-paragraphs (2) and (3).

(2) The person is receiving full-time education (which is not advanced education)—

(a) by attendance at a recognised educational establishment; or

(b) elsewhere, if the education is recognised by the Secretary of State.

(3) The person is a person in respect of whom child benefit is payable.”.

s55 states:
(1) In this Act, “child” means (subject to subsection (2)) a person who—

(a) has not attained the age of 16, or

(b) has not attained the age of 20 and satisfies such conditions as may be prescribed.

So, as has been explained earlier, if the course is full time he cannot be compelled to pay maintenance. The child's income is irrelevant. If he is in full-time scondary education then maintenance is payable until his 20th birthday.

If, and obviously it is an if, the father has been on benefits for 20 months do you know how they would calculate what he has to pay? So for example if it is calculated on his income for this financial year it might be very different to the previous year or do they just look at what he will be earning from today if he returns to work?

I thought you might know as you seem knowledgeable about it.

@Collaborate

Your legal advice is wrong also “if the course is full time then he cannot be compelled to pay maintenance” that’s not true it’s the type of course that determines if cms is still legally liable

Would your brother kick him out because he’s working part time and can clearly pay his own way now (eye roll)

Or would your brother keep paying for the roof over his head whilst he’s working part time and still in education?
Why does your brother suddenly think that maintenance isn’t necessary now he’s working part time?

It seems the pitchfork mob has come over from AIBU. Such a shame. Wind your necks in please. OP is asking about what her brother's legal position is

My Lord. If you want impartial advice you go to a professional who is paid not to express their personal opinions of your behaviour. If you post on a public site, particularly one populated by mothers who will have experience of fathers not wanting to support their own children, then expect to get people's honest views of this behaviour.

This is a man IN WORK who is treating his own child as an 'optional extra' expense that he is trying to get out of out of.

If there was less 'winding necks in' and more society coming down hard on these men, they'd be a lot fewer struggling single parents and children. And a lot more fairness.

@Skilovingmama

What’s the “very good reasons” for not providing for your children because u have very little income??

Errrrr, the fact that you have so little income that you're not able to provide for them? How, if you get SSP of £100 per week do you imagine that a person can also adequately provide for a child who doesn't live with them?

Regardless of your income however low u still need to feed, clothe and provide for your kids wether they reside with you or not I can’t just say I’ve no money so feed yourself if a mother done that it would be neglect but because it’s a father who the child doesn’t primarily reside with then it’s ok?

Even someone on benefits is legally liable to provide £7 a week so why for 20 months he’s not provided anything

There was a typo in my ealrier post. Unless the course is full time the brother does not have to pay.

If, and obviously it is an if, the father has been on benefits for 20 months do you know how they would calculate what he has to pay? So for example if it is calculated on his income for this financial year it might be very different to the previous year or do they just look at what he will be earning from today if he returns to work?
The CMS would look at what his income now is. Assuming the CMS has some involvement already the brother must onotify them when he has started work. If CMS are not involved the mother must apply to CMS.

If you want impartial, expert legal advice, go to an impartial legal expert. I know this is Legal Matters but it's not supposed to be a substitute for actually seeing a professional. It's a place where people can exchange experiences and thoughts, and maybe give you knowledgeable advice but you still need to get it checked out properly.

It's not a place where you access qualified experts who are bound professionally not to share their personal feelings, free of charge.

Of course he should be paying for his son who is still a child ffs

Although I should add I have no idea of the legalities but my view is how I feel from a moral standpoint.

My son works part time as an apprentice. Min wage is £250 a week

Plus college

So it depends

I get maintenance for my 22 year old, why should her father not support her and leave it all to me? Of course fathers should pay until the child is financially independent! My dd has asd so this may not be possible and exh knows this, he's a good man unlike some

@HandWash

'Demanding' it is she?

Why doesn't your brother want to pay for his son? Less time Googling ways to get out of providing and more time working, would be my advice.

Well said @HandWash

So sick of seeing posts trying to wiggle out of child support.

@DrSbaitso

If you want impartial, expert legal advice, go to an impartial legal expert. I know this is Legal Matters but it's not supposed to be a substitute for actually seeing a professional. It's a place where people can exchange experiences and thoughts, and maybe give you knowledgeable advice but you still need to get it checked out properly.

It's not a place where you access qualified experts who are bound professionally not to share their personal feelings, free of charge.

Nobody is saying it’s a substitute but legal advice is expensive and many can’t afford it. Also, there are a number of regular posters like @prh47bridge who are legal professionals but give up their time to help people. I am also a qualified solicitor but am non-practising. There is plenty of really good advice on here that helps people who otherwise wouldn’t get that help.

Why is he trying to avoid paying any money to his child? You've missed a lot of information out of the OP.

Dad of the year award goes to…..

He’s still a child. He has to pay until he’s 18. No part time job will negate that. Does his mother no longer provide food/housing/clothing etc or is it just your brother who thinks he doesn’t have to pay?

@racingnowhere

It seems the pitchfork mob has come over from AIBU. Such a shame. Wind your necks in please. OP is asking about what her brother's legal position is

My Lord. If you want impartial advice you go to a professional who is paid not to express their personal opinions of your behaviour. If you post on a public site, particularly one populated by mothers who will have experience of fathers not wanting to support their own children, then expect to get people's honest views of this behaviour.

This is a man IN WORK who is treating his own child as an 'optional extra' expense that he is trying to get out of out of.

If there was less 'winding necks in' and more society coming down hard on these men, they'd be a lot fewer struggling single parents and children. And a lot more fairness.

Well said!

Googling “how to avoid supporting my own child”- nice!