Does child maintenance stop once DC have finished Alevels or continue if they go to Uni?

[hulahoopsilove]

Im confused the government site says
"Child maintenance payments usually stop when the child reaches 16 (or 20 if theyre in full-time education not higher than A-level or equivalent)"

DSD is 18 in March having taken AL's last 2 years...we assumed maintenance would stop at 18 - she is going to Uni next year for 2 years does child maintence continue till she is out of education?

It's done as a private agreement between DH and his ex

It stops when the child ceases to be eligible for child benefit and yes that could be until they turn 20. Or longer if court ordered passed a certain level

Sorry, I've been working. There should be a legal obligation for a NRP to support their child until they are on their feet. Why should it be up to one parent? I'm happy to support ds because he needs at least one parent who's willing to help him out. Student debt is far higher now than it was 10 years ago and I wouldn't be happy with ds being saddled with tens of thousands of pounds worth of debt before he's even started work. I am aware that he won't have to repay this until he's earning above a certain amount, but life is really tough for young adults. What hope does ds have of owning his own house for example.

Child tax credit ends the same as Child benefit by the way, so at 18. Post 18 there's nothing.

DH has a daughter, she's about 24 now, and they are estranged (long story). Despite having not seen her dad since she was 14 (her choice, although the ex wasn't particularly helpful) both her and her mother thought DH should contribute to her Uni costs (even though her mother apparently had no plans to help out financially herself) and the daughter sought legal advice. She was told she couldn't force her father to contribute.

So that was the end of that. However I've had this discussion on threads in the past, there seems to be some misinformation out there, suggesting that you can sue your parents for Uni costs.

ladysybil yes, all child benefits stop post 18, but surely that's because the child is now an adult and capable of getting a job?

Why should it be up to one parent? I'm happy to support ds because he needs at least one parent who's willing to help him out. Student debt is far higher now than it was 10 years ago and I wouldn't be happy with ds being saddled with tens of thousands of pounds worth of debt before he's even started work.

It's not up to either parent - parents choose whether or not to financially support their adult children, and if parents are separated, then that often results in parents choosing act differently.

Saying that, there have been several posts on the relationships and AIBU boards here on MN where "together" parents disagree on the level and duration of support for adult DCs; if "still together" couples disagree, it's inevitable that separated parents will!

There should be a legal obligation for a NRP to support their child until they are on their feet. Why should it be up to one parent? It isn't "up to one parent" at the moment, because there's no financial obligation on the RP to support their student child either. But if there was a legal obligation on the NRP only then there would be a legal obligation on one parent only - that's hardly fair.

It's really quite insulting to imply that only NRPs need a court to make them pay towards their adult children, wheras other parents don't - because NRPs don't actually care enough about their children to pay otherwise I'm sure there are examples where they could pay and don't, but there are examples of students from all types of families where the parents refuse to support them for whatever reason.

Maybe the question here is whether you would support the children who live with you through university, Petal?

I'm on the other side. Ds doesn't see his father (he moved abroad and is abusive). The only reason I get maintenance now is because I had to take him to court. Prior to this he had been underpaying for years (tens of thousands) and he refused to increase it, even though he has 2 houses etc. He stopped paying because he didn't think that I was grateful, just after I told him that I'd been diagnosed with MS, had just lost my job and I asked him to increase it a little until I got back on my feet. His non payment resulted in ds being unable to get to school and three years later I'm still paying the bills which I accumulated when he wasn't paying. We moved house to be closer to school to keep the costs down, but we left our friends behind so when I'm sick, I have no friends to help. He owes me thousands in arrears which should have been paid last Christmas which we're still waiting for. I hate to sound like a money grabbing bitch, but another few years of maintenance isn't a scratch on repaying what he's done. He's not in the UK so it's different for us, I think.

Ladysilk - the vast majority of students take the loans out and repay them through the tax system like everyone else when they graduate. If you're fortunate enough to be able to subside them so they don't have to take a loan, then you're quite lucky (though it still may be ill-advised as it's quite possible they'd never in fact repay the loan, depending how much they earn). But you can't possibly be saying that students whose parents are separated should be in a uniquely priviledged possition of being able to legally force their fathers to pay their loans for them, when no other students can?

My DP and his exW (in principle) share the university education costs of the DSSs but there are no more payments for child maintenance to the other parent or residence agreements after the age of 18.

Maybe the question here is whether you would support the children who live with you through university

But they don't. There's no point in pretending that NRChildren are equal to RChildren in a household, because they aren't.

It's just not realistic to say "ah, but you'd pay if they lived with you" because if the DC lived in the NRHousehold, then all sorts of long term plans would have been made differently.

In our case, DH wouldn't have transfered to a low paying job in order to stay living locally and therefore able to maintain frequent contact with his DCs. We'd have moved house with the DCs when DHs job transfered and had a far higher household income for years prior to Uni, and been able to save at the level we previously had.

Very good point Peruvian. You can't really class resident and non resident as the same thing for household budgetary purposes.

Ladysybil - you asked if I'd be prepared to fund a child who lived with me: well I fund DSS, who has always been non resident, and criteria is (a) can we afford it; And (b) is the student going to Uni to do something sensible for the right reasons.

I see your point, Purple.

I'm sorry, but I don't agree with that Peruvian. A child who doesn't live with a parent should have just as much rights as one who does. It's not a child's fault that their parents separated so it's very unfair to give priority to the 'new' children. Long term plans should be made with all children in mind, those already born and those yet to come. Treating one child less favourably than the others just causes upset and resentment in that child.

peruvian - we have resident and "non-resident" children in our household and certainly intend to support them all as best we can through university. I don't think your financial obligations towards your children are any less just because they don't haven't been living with you full time before they went to Uni (arguably you've had more opportunity to climb career ladders, etc if you've not been bringing them up, so could be in a better possition than an RP, quite often at least)

But equally it's not any more of a responsibilty than an RP has - and the moral obligation is certainly to the student child, and not to their other parent's wallet.

It's not a child's fault that their parents separated so it's very unfair to give priority to the 'new' children. Long term plans should be made with all children in mind, those already born and those yet to come.

It's not always "new" DCs though - my DHs DCs have been awarded bursaries based on their mums household income, whereas my DD (not DHs) will be awarded a student grant based on our own household income - just because she's not DHs DC doesn't mean his income is disregarded.

Until my DD is 18, the law does require DH to support my DD (as he and I live together) and there's only so much money in the household to go round. It stands to reason that adult DCs are a lower priority then younger DCs, regardless of genetics.

I've got to say I have sympathy with Peruvian's perspective on the broader issue, and I can't see how, in the example of my own situation say, all the kids are going to have the same financial situation. DH's older kids are supported by their mum and dad, as are my kids. The common factor is DH and he supports them all equally, but that's only 50%. The other 50% incorporates the fact that I have chosen to build up a successful career and savings, whereas the DSC's mum has chosen not to work (and not to look after the kids, who were both in nursery from 4 months) and has also spent her substantial savings on treats and trips for herself. Now I (not DH) am saving up for my DC and by the time they are of university age they will have a pot to draw from. DSC's mum and dad didn't do that, so they don't have that money.

Also Im thinking child tax credits would stop for ex at some point???

Yes. The last payment would be made in the first week of september at the start of the academic year after the child finishes A levels. So, child takes A level exams in june?, child benefits/tax credits would continue to be paid until the start of september that year.

Child maintenance should also be paid up to that point. So if your DSD goes straight on to uni post A levels, the CM should be paid until the september, even though she turns 18 in the march.

Sorry, I don't mean for both parents to treat the children 50/50, what I mean is for the NRP to treat the child who lives elsewhere as they would a child who lives with them. I've read on here about the NRP cancelling contact with their child so that they can take themselves and other children on holiday and I find that disgraceful. Imagine how that poor child feels? My ex has sent ds not so much as a Christmas card for the past 3 years yet his current wife posts pictures of their children's presents on Facebook (on ds's father's page so ds would see them). I'm the one who's had to spend time making ds feel secure and wanted, and I've seen the upset that this has caused first hand. Of course if the RP isn't playing fair then that's not right either, it's not up to one parent to fund all of a child's needs or more than their fair share because of the other.

LadySybil your ex sounds like a real wanker.

Just a bit, that's why he's my ex. I was relieved when ds said he didn't want to see him (never my decision to make so I left it up to ds). Contact has been pretty pointless for the past 12 years anyway as he turns up hungover and only see's ds for a couple of hours as he has 'other things to do', so contact was 2 hours every 18 months or less. The highlights have been him taking ds to the cinema and falling asleep, and him shouting and swearing in ds's face. I'm still waiting for the maintenance arrears so that I can pay for ds to see a therapist.

Wow - well your DS is so lucky to have you, and I'm sorry you've had to put up with that from your ex.

Oh, I'm OK. I'm just worried about ds. A relationship like this has got to leave a mark

Oh, sorry, this isn't 21, it's 23 providing a child is in full time education. Thank you, Ireland!!

The are no children in full time education at the age of 23 because at 23 they are no longer considered to be a child. When I was 23 I was in full time education, married and a mother of one. It would have been laughable to suggest I was a child and that my mother should have been in receipt of child benefit.

soontobesix resident or non resident parents have no automatic legal or moral obligation to financially support their adult children at university. Firstly: if the family earn below the threshold (think around £25k) then they will be assessed as unable/ not needing to contribute anything financially.
If they earn over the threshold then they will be calculated to be able to contribute on a sliding scale according to earnings but they are not obliged to make the calculated contribution (and there is no guarantee they can afford to anyway because student finance don't consider size of mortgages or other outgoings).

www.courts.ie/Courts.ie/library3.nsf/pagecurrent/B11AB02FEC1D7101802577EA00400AF8?opendocument

"Age limits
A dependant child is a child under eighteen years of age, or a child under 23 who is in full time education, or a child of any age who is dependant on its parents due to disability."

...... thanking my lucky stars I'm not in Ireland ..........

Actually, medical, dentistry and vet courses are 5 years, meaning a child would be 23 when they finished full time education so this makes sense. Ds wants to be a barrister, so a 3 year degree and a 1 year BPC, so he'll be 22.