Court Order re maintenance

Kyresa

Soubrette wrote: »

Although I personally do agree with what you are saying, it is also a fact that many parents do support their children at university either directly or by sending food parcels, filling up the car, paying for insurance, supporting them in the hols and probably lots of other indirect ways.

I have to admit that I would think less of my ex as a parent if he chose to do none of these things unless there was a very good reason for it (genuine lack of money/space etc).

Sou

Agreed, and as you say, (as the child is now aged 18 and an adult), he can have an agreement directly with his child to do this, the mother (in this case) stops being an intermediary really.

ninab_2

Thanks for all replies.
I will take a gamble and go back to court if there is a chance that the current court order still applies. As said previously i only want what is stated for my son as per the court order. His father will only and always has given the bare minimum and will try and wriggle out of his responsiblities if he can.

I also feel just turning 18 and off to uni is such a big thing and the loans granted only cover rent & course fees so any help from parents will be much needed. I dont think just sending him off on his merry way to fend for himself is the answer this early on. In my eyes hes still a child but maybe i just dont want to let go yet.

AnxiousMum

I too have this with my son at the moment, however, it is a Canadian court order. There is no 'end' date on our order, and so it continues into university IF it was always assumed our son would go to university. As it has always been assumed, evidenced by setting up university trust funds when they were children, then maintenance enforcement there has stated they will continue collecting past his 19th birthday (19 is the cut off age normally there) and into the next year, with a review in August 2011 (to ensure that he is continuing in university education). The big 'question' that relates to our position, is WAS IT ALWAYS EXPECTED THAT THE CHILD WOULD ATTEND UNIVERSITY, and would it be with the support from parents.

I know I'm certainly going to have to help him out financially, and because of his chosen career path, he won't get funding for one of the years whasoever and will definitely need the assistance. He has 40 contact hours per week, and working on research and then later in hospitals doing shifts, he certainly won't have the time to dedicate to a part time job as well. He too has worked for hte past two years though and been saving his money for university, so that he can apply all his time to his studies when he gets there.

When he comes home, he will need accommodation for 20 weeks out of the year, being fed at home etc., so while he's at uni, the agreement is that the child support will be sent directly to him along with my contributions.

I tried it a different way with his older brother, as the dad wanted to send the money directly to him. I agreed with this, however, have since learnt that he only ever sent under one half of what he was required. Maintenance enforcement is now going after him for the full amounts that were payable during those years.

I would seriously consider speaking witha family solicitor to see where you stand and what they advise. It could be your son is doing a course where he can work (if there is work available to him), and it could be that it would be to detriment of his studies.

What does your son say about it?

ninab_2

I am going to make an appt to see a solicitor and take the court order.
My son and i have agreed that he will see how the course goes ie how many hours he has left for a part time job - hes not work shy! but i dont want him to feel pressured in finding a job beacuse he doesnt have the support from parents or one parent!!
I also agree that when he comes home as you say that he will still need a bed,food, travel etc.
My son doesnt want to rock the boat where his dad is concerned and will happily accept what dad says(he knows i wont let him starve) but i on the other hand will fight as i always have done for what is rightly his to have!

Kyresa

http://www.sfla.co.uk/endmaintenance.htm

Good luck, but I think you may be throwing money away on this one.

shell_542

Kyresa wrote: »

http://www.sfla.co.uk/endmaintenance.htm

Good luck, but I think you may be throwing money away on this one.

There are some court orders that state that maintenance is to be paid until the child leaves "tertiary education" which includes university. The wording of the OP's court order is not very clear and will need to be defined by a court, but then it could go either way.

AnxiousMum

I hope you get some success with the solicitor - 'full time education' under laws for benefits means 16 hours per week right? I would read 'secondary education' to mean high school, 'tertiary' to mean university, and 'full time' to include all full time education. do get back to us and let us know how you fare!

shell_542

AnxiousMum wrote: »

I hope you get some success with the solicitor - 'full time education' under laws for benefits means 16 hours per week right? I would read 'secondary education' to mean high school, 'tertiary' to mean university, and 'full time' to include all full time education. do get back to us and let us know how you fare!

For CSA purposes "full time NON ADVANCED education" is 16+ on a qualifying course. So University or higher level courses at college would presumably be "full time ADVANCED education".

I don't think it's as clear cut to say "full time" means any education attending more than 16 hours a week. Like someone said earlier up, an adult could stay in some sort of education, doing degree after degree, for years. There needs to be some cut off.

In the past when someone has had a similar query on the forums, the court order normally states "tertiary education" to include university.

AnxiousMum

shell_542 wrote: »

For CSA purposes "full time NON ADVANCED education" is 16+ on a qualifying course. So University or higher level courses at college would presumably be "full time ADVANCED education".

I don't think it's as clear cut to say "full time" means any education attending more than 16 hours a week. Like someone said earlier up, an adult could stay in some sort of education, doing degree after degree, for years. There needs to be some cut off.

In the past when someone has had a similar query on the forums, the court order normally states "tertiary education" to include university.

But the OP's paperwork doesn't state 'tertiary' or 'secondary' - simply 'full time'. As it's a court order, and not a CSA case - would the court order not hold ground? I know my ex is trying now to get a variation on our order, but instead has resulted in arrears for the son who was in university already.

So it doesn't matter what 'normally' is said on an order - the OP's order doesn't differentiate between levels of education.

shell_542

It doesn't differentiate, no ... but I would imagine the NRP has a right to question the wording of the court order considering child maintenance normally stops once a child enters university now.