Child maintenance - pay until "child" is 23 if in full time education?

[ladydeedy]

Hello all
not sure where to post this one, so trying here as well as legal!
My DH's maintenance (agreed through solicitors, not through CSA) states that he will continue to pay child maintenance up until the time the child leaves full time education maximum 23 years of age.
We have no problem at all in supporting him through his education but my question is - why should the money be paid to the mother, not the son? At 23 (should he still be studying) he will be a man in his own right and most likely living away from his mother.
Tbh, I think my DH's solicitor at the time of the divorce wasnt brilliant and they came to an agreement at the 11th hour to avoid court costs, and my DH was in such a mess he wasnt really paying any attention to the detail.
So, I'd be grateful to know - is this normal procedure? Seems a bit odd to me... but what do I know?
Thanks!

I think it might make a bit of sense if you had a completely one sided parenting system - perhaps that's what your parents had maybe where one parent does pretty much all of the driving to Uni, helping out financially, and feeding in the holidays. But even then it seems rather offensive to consider that a divorced father needs to be obliged to financially support his student child via a court order, unlike any other parents who just do it from a sense of duty or love. And many students live away in the holidays after the first year, or get summer jobs to support themselves.

And a lot of people have a much more equal split of parenting duties - where the children spend some of the holidays in each home, and either does the driving, in which case why would any money change hands between the households? It gives the child the impression that their mum (or ex-RP) is the one who supports them, when in fact they are doing so with the other parent's money - I think it's greatly beneficial for the relationship between the child/student and their other parent if they can be handing over the money directly. And very nice for ex-partners not to have their finances entwined any longer than they need to either.

My partner has tried everything to have a relationship with his son, but it always just come back to money and abusive bulling text messages about what he should have. This included a time when my partner had a brain haemorrhage and didnt even know where he was, his son never got in touch until he was back at work therefore had money. This will significantly affect myself and our child, why can the courts not see that.