paying csa until aged 20???

fannyanna

Sorry if I've missed this bit but presumably the requirement to pay up until 20 will be linked to child benefit???

For example you qualify for child benefit up to the age of 20 if in full time, non-advanced education. So you get child benefit for a 19 year old doing a BTEC or NVQ but not for a 19 year old university student.

his_wife

fannyanna, if you are in university then you wont qualify,

fannyanna

his_wife wrote: »

fannyanna, if you are in university then you wont qualify,

That's at least something. It wouldn't have surprised me if you had to pay whilst they were at university - crazier things have happened

his_wife

way things are going fannyanna we will be paying till they are up , married, divorced and old n grey lol

Bluemeanie_2

clearingout wrote: »

my parents helped me presumably because they wanted to but possibly out of a sense of obligation as well. The problem with separated families is that obligation seems to get lost down the middle somewhere.

You're right, a 20 year old isn't a child. But if they are in education and living in their parent's home and dependent on their parents financially for the roof over their heads, heating, food on the table, then there's really no difference between a child of 16 and the adult of 20, is there? and this is the reality of life for many young adults today. Again, I'm not sure that the NRP should be exempt from making a contribution towards that.

I do see your point completely CO. If you are happy for your young adult to carry on into education until the age of 20. I had two years of college, then my options were to get a job and make a token contribution for board, or go to Uni. That will be the same for my children, so don't see why the NRP's opinion/wants, get's completely disregarded in this aspect. Now, before you all jump over for my opinions on education, I'm not talking about productive education, like doing A levels, passing and going on to uni, doing an apprentiship, or vocational training that lasts 3 years, where you get a small wage. I'm talking about some of the people and situations I've experienced, like going to college repeatedly just so you don't have to get a job, or a girl in my uni who took 9 years to do an undergrad degree. Like the situation that hiswife describes.

I don't believe for one second that a PWC or even parents that are together would instantly desire to move to a one bed flat the minute the kids turn 18, so the reality is, they'd continue to pay the same overheards regardless of whether or not that adult lived there. Also lets say the kid turns 18 and get's a job, most parents only accept a token payment of £20 a week or more for board in my experience (or do I just have rich and spoiled friends?).

I'm not saying that a NRP should not have a moral obligation to support the child financially, it's the dictatorshipness of it I object too. And the fact the a PWC continues to get her household subsided. What I've said before, say a 16 yr old moves out, goes to college, doesn't work, the state is expected to support them NOT the parents. Therefore why is the NRP FORCED to pay until 20. If ALL parents had an obligation to support their children until age 20, fill your boots. But as usual the NRP is gettingt he rough end of the deal.

his_wife

ah blue meanie, you said it all so much better than i,,, you have said , virtually word for word, how i wanted to say it , but i couldnt find the right words.

kevin137

What I've said before, say a 16 yr old moves out, goes to college, doesn't work, the state is expected to support them NOT the parents. Therefore why is the NRP FORCED to pay until 20. If ALL parents had an obligation to support their children until age 20, fill your boots. But as usual the NRP is gettingt he rough end of the deal.

I'm not so sure that will be the case anymore...

The state may be subsidising them, but BOTH parents would become NRP's then and as such the Government would have a claim as the PWC fr claiming against them both...!

Which opens up another whole heap of hurt for other people who have had children removed from them, foster care, abandoned, etc The parents of these children could also be chased endlessly even though they get no say in the matter....

Bluemeanie_2

kevin137 wrote: »

I'm not so sure that will be the case anymore...

The state may be subsidising them, but BOTH parents would become NRP's then and as such the Government would have a claim as the PWC fr claiming against them both...!

Which opens up another whole heap of hurt for other people who have had children removed from them, foster care, abandoned, etc The parents of these children could also be chased endlessly even though they get no say in the matter....

If that changes then great. I'm giving my opinion on the situation as it stands or will shortly stand. If all parents have to support their children to age 20 then there's not a lot I can argue against, but at present I'm not aware of one young person who get's CS off either of their parents if they don't live at home, even if they are in education.

kevin137

If the government do NOT follow this route, they are negligent in there own system and compounding the problem as parents will just kick there own kids out...!!!

his_wife

to be fair, the government are promoting to keep kids in college till 20, in order to reduce the unemployment figures!! Most college children i have spoken too, only go because, they get ema?? its a shame when genuine people want to go, but cant afford to because a, they parents dont qualify for benefits, and b , they dont qualify for ema?