Ex expecting maintenance for DC at uni?

[Monst3ra]

DH has lowered ex's maintenance to account for eldest DC is now at uni. Ex has told DH that she is giving DC a monthly amount and she expects DH to now give her half of the amount she has decided to give DC.

DC is 19.

Is it unreasonable for DH to have agreed his own way of financially helping directly with DC rather than via ex?

Another one who agrees that maintenance for a young adult who is now at Uni stops - it's not the exes responsibility to help with household costs indefinitely. My stepson went to Uni in Sept and my husband cut maintenance accordingly (still pays for youngest). Any agreement on support he is giving through Uni is made directly with his son. The ex wife has been perfectly happy with this.

I don't understand people saying, sad the Father doesn't want to support? He's trying to arrange supporting his child financially without paying the ex, which is totally reasonable.

You are legally an adult at 18, Mum and Dad don't have to look after your money and maintenance for you. Give them the chance to look after some of their finances, make mistakes and learn how to be responsible!

The CSA told me that my ex partner was not obligated to support uni child and that they had no power to enforce this

Perhaps not a statutory obligation but there is surely a moral obligation - just as there would be if the DF still lived with the DC.

I'm so glad my XH contributed to my student DCs' living costs - no question! (and almost all NRPs that I know happily do so. It's their DPs who complain about it - )

I don't see it as a moral obligation either, to be honest.

Where I am (not a rich place, clearly!) its quite unusual for your parents to pay your way through uni. Everyone I know who went got a PT job and didn't get anything from their parents. Inc my friend who studied in London and had an enormous amount of rent to pay. She just got a job.

If DSS or DS want to go to uni, and we have legitimately spare cash, and we want to, then we will send them some if they need it.

I wouldn't be funding nights out etc, which lets face it is what a lot of students money goes on.

A lot of people are missing the point. The dad is happy to support the child/adult but both RP and NRPs maintain homes throughout the child's lives that they can stay in so why should one subsidise the other? Unless in the rare case they don't have the ability to have them live with them. But as adults it's now up to them to discuss paying for staying at home. I went to uni while at home with two parents in my house and still paid my way with part time jobs!

It's only a 'moral' obligation if you are the kind of person who places value on 3rd level education! My dc are lucky in that both exh & I place the same value on education so we've not had any issues with this. However my exdp's exw places no value on college or uni, in fact she actively discourages it. This is not a stance I personally would agree with but exdp was told by legal counsel that if he wanted his kids to go to 3rd level he would have to fund it himself as she could not be forced to contribute.
She too fully expected maintenance to continue even though eldest was living away during the week & some weekends & threw a blue fit when exdp said no.
He transferred the maintenance directly to eldest ds & told him it was between him & his dm what contribution he makes to the house when he's home with her.

As appropriate the adult child pays their way if they stay in their mother's house

I would not expect my adult child in full time education to pay their way at home. Whether it be rent or to buy their own food.

They would absolutely do their own laundry etc and clean up after themselves, as well as some general housework.

I think it's being tight to take money from a full time student and it wouldn't sit well with me at all.

It's only a 'moral' obligation if you are the kind of person who places value on 3rd level education!

I place value on it if its a worthwhile course, but I also place value on being financially independent... Having work experience nowadays is just as important as having a degree. Every tom dick and harry has a degree now, you have to stand out. Having been employed for 3 years is much better for your future prospects than being propped up by your parents is.

What would you say to parents who value 3rd level education and cant afford to fund 3 years of uni for perhaps multiple children? That they lack morals?

I think it's being tight to take money from a full time student and it wouldn't sit well with me at all.

But it's not full time education. Most students tend to attend and study for 21 hours per week. Plenty of time to learn how to adult a bit more and get a part time job and supplement their income.

I think it's a bit of a bad example to set that if you want to spend 3 years studying you don't need to chip into the family pot. Not necessarily taking money from them but certainly assisting themselves and their student life a bit.

But it's not full time education. Most students tend to attend and study for 21 hours per week.

I know they dont have lectures from 9 to 5, but depending on lecture times, it's not feasible to get a job for a couple of hours at odd times of the day.

It's considered a full time course by the system not part time study.

Those other hours should be used to study.

I'd also add that getting a job is not the only thing that makes you an adult or makes you grow up.

Whatabout people who live on benefits or SAHP ..who continue to stay at home and remain financially dependent on their spouse long after their kids have gone to and left school.

There's no harm in getting a part time job as a student, but I would never ask my DC who return home during holidays to contribute to the household.

I can afford feed my DC and I don't need a payment towards the mortgage that remains the same if they're here or not.

I don't understand this attitude of now your 18, you have to pay your way, while still studying.

The student loa n is assessed on parental household income, meaning, as a parent you're expected to contribute.

The SL system has many flaws, but that is the current expectation.

Whatabout people who live on benefits or SAHP ..who continue to stay at home and remain financially dependent on their spouse long after their kids have gone to and left school

Not really comparable and somewhat offensive to stay at home mums.

I think if you choose to study for 3 years you cannot expect your parents to pay for it. Just as if you chose to travel for 3 years you couldn't expect them to pay for that either.

I think if you choose to study for 3 years you cannot expect your parents to pay for it. Just as if you chose to travel for 3 years you couldn't expect them to pay for that either.

I agree @Bollykecks

I think we're heading into a bit of a tangent here though, should the ex wife still expect the husband to pay maintenance directly to her? After full time education to the age of 18 there may be a difference of opinion between two long divorced exes on the importance of further education.

Regardless of the views of both parents there's no obligation to carry on regardless of the practicalities, financial situation of either party but a contribution is good in my opinion.

OTOH my OH has had years of struggling to pay for himself after paying maintenance and additional very generous amounts on top + he had to keep a house large enough for the children to stay in when they visit.

DC is currently at UNi studying for a degree with no interest in the end career path. Her choice, but she needs to learn that the world doesn't owe anyone a free lunch. And before I get slated. We do help her out but not in the way my DH's ex wife would like us to

@SandyY2K

I can afford feed my DC and I don't need a payment towards the mortgage that remains the same if they're here or not

Which is fine as long as you're able to do this without expecting their dad to make the payment towards you as he will be paying the mortgage on his house whether the DC is there or not

@Bollykecks

Not really comparable and somewhat offensive to stay at home mums

You deliberately missed the part where I said they (SAHPs, not SAHMs) continue to stay at home when the kids are in school and long after they have left school.

Staying at home to look after DC is a job in itself... if a student is expected to work, why can't a parent who has a child in school for 5/6 hours a day.

My point is that getting a job isn't the only indicator of being an adult.

I think this all comes down to individual values/attititudes regarding education at this level and upbringings, as well as financial circumstances.

Some parents have the money, but as a matter of principle, they don't want to support their DC in University.

Which is fine as long as you're able to do this without expecting their dad to make the payment towards you as he will be paying the mortgage on his house whether the DC is there or not

Absolutely.

I would continue to financially support my child in Uni and would expect him to do the same, by giving our DC the money directly.

Well sahps even with school age children tend to run a house. You know, cook, clean, do life admin run errands etc.

Students dont. Its not comparable.

And also sahps arent asking their parents to fund them. They're a family. Its family money a joint decision between a couple.

Expecting bank of mum and dad to cough up for studies is very very different.

I think MN is the only place where ADULTS are expected to be 'maintained' via a parent until there mid twenties.

My ex paid maintenance AS PER LEGAL REQUIREMENT until the DCs left non-advanced full time education. After that maintenance stopped. The DCs (as ADULTS) were expected to work part time from teens and then full time in Uni holidays.
Student loan is worked out on the Uni students HOUSEHOLD income and paid accordingly. Any 'parental contribution' is worked out on that same HOUSEHOLD income . Not the non-resident parent.

There is a responsibility here for the Uni student to take a degree of financial burden here by working. There is absolutely no legal requirement for a non resident parent to pay. Although it is great if in the position to do so. Whilst at the same time having an adult understanding that often the NRP has younger children who have a right to be paid for and at some point the buck has to stop and adult children need to get on with it.

Mine all worked throughout Uni.

I think MN is the only place where ADULTS are expected to be 'maintained' via a parent until there mid twenties
I agree to a point.

Given the recent thread where people hounded an OP because they were thinking of downsizing and it would mean her 20something year old child who had moved out 7 years ago wouldn't have a room, I think some people seem to promote this idea of extended adolescence. Apparently the OP was mean and nasty and not making her child welcome.

Other threads have told OPs that they should accept their new partner's adult son in his 20s/30s turning up unannounced, being rude and they should roll over whilst household money subsidises adult child's poor work ethic.

That said, I think some others think at 18 people suddenly become an adult. Many of my y13 students are 18 and they're really overgrown kids in some respects who are just learning how to stand on their own feet when they go to uni/get a job later.

Most will provide support past 18, but the nature of the support will differ as they move into adulthood.

Agree that not all 18yos are "grown up" and need support. Just think support comes in many forms and throwing money at them is probably one of the least helpful.

Teaching them budgeting probably better!

Teaching them budgeting. Yes, yes yes...

Adult dc need to understand this stuff and not rely on parents especially if parents run two separate households..

My ex DH has three much younger children with his now DW... why are they not allowed to expect the same level of assistance his first children were ?

I agree with @LolaSmiles. Support needs to adapt for the child as they grow older. The biggest mistake I made growing up was landing myself with a not very well paid job and a flat and an expensive lifestyle aspiration when I was 21. But I learnt a lot in 3 years and none of that was from my parents.

I wish my parents had taught me a lot more about financial responsibility and the cost of things.

throwing money at them is probably one of the least helpful. Teaching them budgeting probably better!

So people with more money than you don’t have to budget? Why assume that a supported young adult will somehow be worse off in the big scheme of life finances than one who is forced to ‘budget’? Because in my own experience, I didn’t want for anything whilst at uni but have never defaulted on a personal loan or credit card, have no overdraft and had paid off my mortgage by 45. I have savings. I have also lived through far richer times and far leaner times than I am currently living. Having parents who supported me financially hasn’t done me any budgeting harm whatsoever.

The how dare any step child expect their father to support them beyond 18 rhetoric is predictable.

sotired

a uni student who know mummy and daddy will transfer them more money each month probably will not learn to budget because they don't need to. Why would you budget if you knew your mum and dad would bail you out each time?

well done you for being so utterly perfect, but the reality is that many uni students are absolutely crap with money. The ones who are good with money are generally the ones who have a) been taught to be responsible with money from an early age (maybe this is you!) and b) earn their own money.

The how dare any step child expect their father to support them beyond 18 rhetoric is predictable

Stop projecting. I haven't even specifically said that no step child should expect support from their father after 18. What I have actually said is that NO ADULT - YES, ADULT, should expect their parents (Whether they're together or not, makes no difference) to fund 3 whole years of their life.

Nobody should expect - that being the absolute key word here - their parents to fund them when they are an adult.

Its irrelevant imo whether they're a step child or not.

@Bollykecks I know a decent number of people who had one or both of their parents transfer them money every month as a university student. Some worked part-time others didn't. Either way they learnt they had to budget because no-one would bail them out.

I also know people who didn't have parental help and they got into debt even though they worked part-time.

There is not one size fits all.

@Sotiredofthislife the university student is an adult. One or both their parents may choose to help but it isn't mandatory that that parents help their adult child.

no, there isn't a one size fits all, but my general point is - if you know someone is going to bail you out, or keep sending you money for 3 years you probably are more likely to be less responsible with money than someone who actually works for it.

Im not saying everyone is, but its more likely.

I don't think that funding an adult through 3 years of uni is the best life lesson you could give though If I am honest.

Paying their rent if you're a high income family and so they got a tiny loan is 1 thing (and even then there are plenty other options!) , but funding their nights out because they cba to get a job is quite another.

I don't understand how tight people are on here. When my dc goes to uni I would never take money off her for mortgage or food. I will try and pay her rent if she needs to study away. Surely that's what parents do.