New CSA age limit

tamsin1982

im sure this age thing wont change to include uni students

Donedoingdebt

I'm sure most responsible NRPs would agree. But they may like the choice of how they support their child when they reach 19 or 20 rather than having to pay the PWC via the CSA & having no choice as to how their contribution is spent.

jon_stead

tamsin1982 wrote: »

im sure this age thing wont change to include uni students

And neither should it! At some point our children have to take responsibility for themselves. I am not saying that we don't still spoil them and treat them when we can, they are still our "babies", but in the eyes of the law they have to stop being dependant at some point. I thought it was 18, when they became adults, but clearly it is 19 for CSA purposes.

Leave it as it is I say.

tamsin1982

I can understand that but in my opinion the money is for gas/elec/food and im sure i'll still be buyin clothes and toiletries at that age too ( I imagine for a few yrs after csa is payable too!!)
how do you think the money should be spent?

Mr_Green_Genes

Blackpool_Saver wrote: »

I look at it this way, if the parents were still together then both parents would be contributing for further/higher education, so why should that be different when the parents are no longer together?

Sorry but I think that's a crass statement because it's confusing 2 different subjects.

No-one disputes that, thanks to the current governments grotesque policy on student funding, students need more parental support than they ever did in Bliar or Brown's day. This post, however, confuses parental support for students with a government inspired scam to fix the value of such support.

I was the PWC until my two went to university and, as such, was getting maintenance from their mother, albeit that at times it was a bit of a struggle. I support (-ed in one case as he's now finished) them at university, to the best of my ability. As far as I'm aware, so does their mother. I don't know that to be the case, but I believe it to be so. I don't actually care either way, and I don't care whether, if she does support them too, she pays less, more or the same as I do.

The point is that we do whatever we can, in our own way to help our children. We don't need a bunch of mindless, pointless, clueless civil servants to tell us whether, or to what extent, we should be doing this, we don't even communicate about it, we just do it. And that's all it takes.

OK, rant over.

PS For any newbie out there, I have been both NRP and PWC and am therefore a) better qualified than many to see both sides of the argument and b) not on any particular side. I am utterly opposed to the CSA and will always take any civilian's side against the gestapo.

tamsin1982

Mr_Green_Genes wrote: »

Sorry but I think that's a crass statement because it's confusing 2 different subjects.

No-one disputes that, thanks to the current governments grotesque policy on student funding, students need more parental support than they ever did in Bliar or Brown's day. This post, however, confuses parental support for students with a government inspired scam to fix the value of such support.

I was the PWC until my two went to university and, as such, was getting maintenance from their mother, albeit that at times it was a bit of a struggle. I support (-ed in one case as he's now finished) them at university, to the best of my ability. As far as I'm aware, so does their mother. I don't know that to be the case, but I believe it to be so. I don't actually care either way, and I don't care whether, if she does support them too, she pays less, more or the same as I do.

The point is that we do whatever we can, in our own way to help our children. We don't need a bunch of mindless, pointless, clueless civil servants to tell us whether, or to what extent, we should be doing this, we don't even communicate about it, we just do it. And that's all it takes.

OK, rant over.

PS For any newbie out there, I have been both NRP and PWC and am therefore a) better qualified than many to see both sides of the argument and b) not on any particular side. I am utterly opposed to the CSA and will always take any civilian's side against the gestapo.

I have one disagreement

some people do need to be told, if my ex wasnt told by someone to contribute then he wouldnt and i doubt he will have grown up when our son leaves school in 13yrs so he most likely wont be helpin him in anyway!!

you see the side of pwc and nrp but u dont see the side of hiding from your responsibilities

Mr_Green_Genes

Tamsin, I'll definitely give you that one. My post certainly came the position that we all recognise our responsibilities and do all we can to fulfil them. I accept that there are some people who can't, or don't, see things in the same way. I apologise if I caused you any upset or discomfort because of your personal circumstances.

I still consider the CSA as the enemy however :D:D

jpmummy

tamsin1982 wrote: »

I can understand that but in my opinion the money is for gas/elec/food and im sure i'll still be buyin clothes and toiletries at that age too ( I imagine for a few yrs after csa is payable too!!)
how do you think the money should be spent?

But who hasn't paid keep to their parents towards the cost of living in the past? you would still be buying these things anyway so why do you need a further contribution via the csa. This is about cut off points, whilst I am sure that your child will be continuing education there are some people out there who claim that their children are and they arE not. There has to be a cut off somewhere. 19 in my opinion is too old and 20 is ridiculous. Sometimes it is not about the money or the dependant it is about making the NRP life hell and revenge for a break up and make sure that they cough up 4ever.

marksoton

Blackpool_Saver wrote: »

I look at it this way, if the parents were still together then both parents would be contributing for further/higher education, so why should that be different when the parents are no longer together?

So what about the PWC who is on benefits and might have been the whole childs life !?

Thet have NEVER helped contribute financially to the child's upbringing. The NRP then has the indignity of being told that despite this he must continue paying them for an ever longer period of time ! :mad:

kelloggs36

tamsin1982 wrote: »

if my son wants to further his education I will still have to support him, I dont see why I should be the only one when he has two parents!!

Unfortunately the law suddenly changes then! It seems that the STEP parent is now liable to support the 'child' when university loans/grants are assessed and not the other parent (of course the parent that is living with the 'child' remains liable).