paying csa until aged 20???

nicky3

what an interesting thread and a great example of how the client group are kept positively in the dark. Sick of it...it's like us mere mortals could not comprehend the rules, so those in authority interpret it as they see fit, and feed it to us as they see fit.....

For the recored, in Scotland, kids are entitled to parental 'aliment' until age 25 if they are in education, we have had a couple of court cases by students against parents

yan79

It comes into force on the 10th December this year x

Dissillusioned

yan79 wrote: »

It comes into force on the 10th December this year x

What does ?

kevin137

Dissillusioned wrote: »

What does ?

Paying for children until there 20th B/day instead of 19th...

So all those cases that have been closed as no longer eligible recently, now become eligible again and you have a whole new case opened against you...!

Dissillusioned

Shocking really,thought it was child not adult support! if they want to do that,fine,it should be for new cases not established ones.Squeezing the compliant,as ever!

And how long til its 21,22,23......etc

PreludeForTimeFeelers

It brings the CSA in line with child benefit, which can be paid past a child's 19 birthday if they're in certain types of full-time education.

his_wife

Still think its wrong, why couldnt they bring child benefit into line with csa, instead of other way on. The things the government do , to keep young people unemployment figures down!!

13Kent

I have just been reading this thread and related threads in horror, as we thought we were nearing the end of the payments for child number 1. I knew we would probably have to pay until the 'child' was 19, but now the child has reached 18 and is completing year 1 of an NVQ type apprenticeship. We were hoping this would lead to a 'proper' job, but it appears that the child will be starting a second apprenticeship once the first one finishes.

My question was - If a dependant 'child' is over 18 and starts a second year apprenticeship I believe their pay increases from £2.65 to the minimum wage of £4.98 an hour so that 'child' will be earning in their own right approx £200 a week. Would they then be considered to be working and therefore maintenance is no longer payable, or are they still considered to be in education and therefore the maintenance should still be paid?

We know the child in question is no longer living in the mother's house although that is frustratingly impossible to prove. Annoyingly the maintenance is being paid to the PWC who in reality is no longer the PWC as the 'child' no longer lives there!! We would be happy to help support the 'child' directly, but the mother holds all the aces and trying to communicate this to the 'child' just hasn't worked. (The mother pushed the child to continue in school doing 'A' levels which we knew would be too hard but the mother ensured that her money would continue, the child failed dismally at this, and had dropped out by the first half term and then did nothing being discouraged by the mother to try and get a proper job but was registered with Connections so CSA was still payable. It wasn't until the following February that the apprenticeship started. We felt like that by providing financial support we were actively encouraging the child to sit at home and do nothing!) So the thought of having to continue these payments for another couple of years when we thought that once the apprenticeship year was up it was possible that the payments would end is sickening!

sfm82

Why is it difficult to prove that he doesnt live with his mother anymore? Do you know if shes still claiming child benefit and tax credits?

13Kent

She is still claiming child benefit. If anyone asked the mother or the child the response would be that the child lives with the mother so it would be our word against theirs, and the onus would be on us to prove it. Also if they got wind of us trying to prove it all the child would have to do would be to move back in with the mother ....then no case, and once everything calms down again then move back out. Also we run the risk of alienating the child by going down that route - the person the child lives with is in a flat and could be guilty of subletting when they were not supposed to, and are also probably claiming a discount on council tax for living alone and so could get into trouble...as could the mother if we proved she was claiming child benefit fraudulently - we don't care about getting the mother into trouble..... but on both counts with the mother and the person the child lives with if we did go down that route and get them both into trouble the child would hate us for sure - we have too much to lose - 'rock and hard place' comes to mind!