Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act 2008

Donedoingdebt

mick6177 wrote: »

Does anybody know when this part of the new act comes into play



"A new s 55 (meaning of ‘child’) is substituted which takes childhood under the Act to a twentieth birthday, but in circumstances which are to be developed only in regulations – presumably by careful definition of what is advanced and other education or training. The cross-over between these provisions and the relevant provisions of Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 and Children Act 1989 Sch 1 will need to be taken carefully into account."

Hopefully, not until after December 2010!!!!!!!

Blonde_Bint

Donedoingdebt wrote: »

Hopefully, not until after December 2010!!!!!!!

I'm sorry to be nosey DDD i've got to ask curiosity has the better of me i'm afraid lol. Whats going to happen after December 2010? i'm stumped and cant come up with anything:o

mick6177

I knew if i read long enough i would find something on this





Child Maintenance And Other Payments Act 20082008 Chapter 6 - continued

Section 42: Meaning of 'child'

379. Section 42 replaces section 55 of the Child Support Act 1991 to amend the definition of a child. Subsection (1) of section 55 increases the potential upper age limit of a child from up to the nineteenth birthday, to up to the twentieth birthday in prescribed circumstances. :TIt is intended that this change will only apply to applications made under the new arrangements once they are introduced. :T
380. It is intended that the regulations will operate to re-align the definition of a child with that used in child benefit legislation following the Child Benefit Act 2005. Child Benefit can now be paid up to a person's twentieth birthday (previously it stopped at the nineteenth birthday) and it is no longer confined to those in full-time non-advanced education, but is also payable for persons undertaking 'approved training'.

AND BEFORE YOU ASK NO I DO NOT WANT IT TO GO ON BEYOND 19

CMAC_2

mick6177 wrote: »

I knew if i read long enough i would find something on this






Child Maintenance And Other Payments Act 20082008 Chapter 6 - continued

Section 42: Meaning of 'child'

379. Section 42 replaces section 55 of the Child Support Act 1991 to amend the definition of a child. Subsection (1) of section 55 increases the potential upper age limit of a child from up to the nineteenth birthday, to up to the twentieth birthday in prescribed circumstances. :TIt is intended that this change will only apply to applications made under the new arrangements once they are introduced. :T
380. It is intended that the regulations will operate to re-align the definition of a child with that used in child benefit legislation following the Child Benefit Act 2005. Child Benefit can now be paid up to a person's twentieth birthday (previously it stopped at the nineteenth birthday) and it is no longer confined to those in full-time non-advanced education, but is also payable for persons undertaking 'approved training'.

AND BEFORE YOU ASK NO I DO NOT WANT IT TO GO ON BEYOND 19

This part of the Bill prior to becoming the Act. There is intention to increase the age to 20 but it wont be via this Act. It will come via the budget prior to the next election as a vote winner issues

CMAC_2

Can I retract my last message just spoke to a coleague Section 42 did go through just not enacted yet sorry for the confussion Mick6177 is correct with his post

Donedoingdebt

Blonde_Bint wrote: »

I'm sorry to be nosey DDD i've got to ask curiosity has the better of me i'm afraid lol. Whats going to happen after December 2010? i'm stumped and cant come up with anything:o

My youngest reaches the grand old age of 19.:j

Donedoingdebt

mick6177 wrote: »

Child Maintenance And Other Payments Act 20082008 Chapter 6 - continued

Section 42: Meaning of 'child'

It is intended that this change will only apply to applications made under the new arrangements once they are introduced. :T

Ok, I may be a bit slow here, but does this bit mean only new applications after a notified date to the CSA/CMEC will be extended to age 20, or if any reassessment is carried out to existing cases (CS1 & CS2) after this date may also be extended to 20?

Also, there seems to be a feeling among some on this board, that NRPs currently on CS1 & CS2 may stay on those systems & never be changed over before their case ends.

Now, there are pros & cons on both these systems, but one positive of both, admittedly only for NRP, is that they end on the 19th birthday. Will this positive remain in place, along with all the cons of both systems & therefore, we may have a 2 tier system whereby existing users pay until 19 & all new users pay until 20?

Before anyone jumps down my throat, I stress that I am fully aware that parental responsibility does not end at any given age & that support, both financially & emotionally, is given throughout their lives until you're told to "Give me some space"!!!!!!

It's just that after the case closes, currently 19 in my case, it would be nice for me to be able to have a say & to choose where my child support is used & perhaps come to an amicable agreement with the PWC as to the best way forward for the young adult.

mick6177

You have bought up some interesting points with regards to the age/stopping issue, and i fear you maybe right with the fact that those transferred to CMEC/CS3 may, "because of a computer issue" or something like that mean CS1 and CS2 extended, I hope they dont for the sake of poor NRPs.

Blonde_Bint

I too wonder when the actual, x amount of money per month going out of your bank can end. Its not very clear is it. I personally think that 20 is a bit old really. just my opinion. before we get a bevvy of pwc's jumping in with cost and that not stopping with age blah blah blah, how about when does a child become responsible for their own costs? lol if a child keeps getting x amount of money in their account even in their 20s they wont have any incentive to sort out their own finances if they have a PWC who is telling them its all right jack its up to him to pay, until when? forever? on this basis i'm serious when I say that after reading some of these boards I may look into child maintenance for myself, i'm in my 30s I think it should stop when they are 18.

what if an NRP cant afford for his child to go to uni it seems that the child and PWC can say we dont care i'm going anyway and your paying even if you cant afford it. not all families can afford to send their kids to uni. some children whose parents live together cant go to uni because they cant pay for it thats an end to it. am I wrong?

Donedoingdebt

In my opinion, you're not wrong. I feel up to 20 is far too old to be treated as a child in this one area of child support payments, when in almost every other aspect of life they're effectively treated as adults after the age of 18.

I accept that if they stay on for the normal 2 year A level courses at school or college, then quite often, the child will not be far off 19 before their term ends & perhaps child support via the CSA should continue in that case.

However, I feel that raising the age of payments via the CSA to 20 is wrong. As Blonde Bint hinted at, what incentive is that for the small minority of unscrupulous PWC & the small minority of our more work shy offspring to go out & actively look for work, when they can just sign on for another, perhaps innappropriate college course for a year to keep the CSA money rolling in? And I did say "SMALL MINORITY"!!!!!

I sound like my Father now, but in my younger days, if money was tight, & it often was, you either had to get a full time job or support yourself as much as possible with a part time job to get through college.