child leaving college and csa

Cally_Smart

I think the connections registration allows Ch/ben to be claimed for up to 20 weeks after the leaving of a college course( just in case they intend to go back or change courses )But as neither have been in college this year we should be out of this timescale now!

nicky3

it's just a scam to keep these kids off unemployment benefit and keep the unemployed numbers down - let's not kid ourselves!! Child benefit costs less!

nicky3

And I don't know about England, but in Scotland, kids get funded to start college courses they have no intention of finishing - so they take a place, pack it in, and a course that maybe starts with 30 people, takes about 8 through to it's completion - at no cost to the kids or the parents and with no consequence for the blatant waste of resource! And it seems that they can do this over and over!

Crellow4

How are these older children to be supported if not by their parents? There are no benefits available to them, jobs are in short supply as are training placements - so who is supposed to support them? Should the resident parent throw them out on the street - or send them to live with the non-resident parent now they're not attending school? Children don't stop needng assistance when school stops :-(

Cally_Smart

They could do a part time job,enough to support themselves like my daughter from a previous relationship had to after she completed her college course & when she no longer became eligible for child support (its called growing up & being responsible for yourself !)
Also my friend (a pwc) is expected to keep her son age 16 ( no contact with the father or CSA money,after he left school and didn't sign on for college.There is no social security,tax credits then until they are 18 & can sign on themselves- if they haven't managed to get a job by then!
Nobody is saying they wont support the qc's it about being ORDERED TO by an AGENCY that encourages breaking the law -hardy a good example to young people !

Crellow4

But they are saying they won't support them - what alternatives are they coming up with? Often these children do have part time jobs - and are criticised for this with parents posting threads asking why they should continue to pay for them. I understand all about children growing up and being responsible, I also understand that this does not happen overnight. My son is almost 18, he will remain in FTE until next summer and hence will be covered by CHB until the beginning of September 2014. His father will pay maintenance until then and then will stop supporting his son - I won't!

Marisco

Crellow4 wrote: »

But they are saying they won't support them - what alternatives are they coming up with? Often these children do have part time jobs - and are criticised for this with parents posting threads asking why they should continue to pay for them. I understand all about children growing up and being responsible, I also understand that this does not happen overnight. My son is almost 18, he will remain in FTE until next summer and hence will be covered by CHB until the beginning of September 2014. His father will pay maintenance until then and then will stop supporting his son - I won't!

Are they though? Or are they saying they are fed up of coughing up for a "child" that doesn't qualify under CSA "rules"? I've read posts over the years about PWC's who encourage their "child" to do course after course, as they know the money will stop otherwise. How about instead of the NRP giving it to the PWC, to give it to the "child" direct?

I'm sure NRP's won't mind that (I mean responsible ones, deadbeats will always be deadbeats regardless!!) That way the NRP doesn't feel like he is subsidising the PWC, and also the kids won't be pushed to do something that maybe they don't want to. It would then be up to the PWC and the "child" to negotiate the board between themselves.

13Kent

Crellow4 wrote: »

How are these older children to be supported if not by their parents? There are no benefits available to them, jobs are in short supply as are training placements - so who is supposed to support them? Should the resident parent throw them out on the street - or send them to live with the non-resident parent now they're not attending school? Children don't stop needng assistance when school stops :-(

Some posters have said that this happens a lot, the NRP who would have been happy to have more contact with the child but has been denied that contact as it would have reduced the maintenance the PWC got. However once the maintenance comes to an end the PWC is then happy for the child to go and live with the NRP.

makeyourdaddyproud

Cally_Smart wrote: »

We asked the CSA about this last month, they said their only concern is that the pwc is claiming ch/ben -a quick check on computer proved she was despite neither of the qc's attending college since last year !We said we are telling you & asking for a C of cir.They said their only legal requirement is that the pwc claims c/ben ,its is not up to them to find out !We had letter back 3 days later saying no CofC allowed ! They said you wont get any backdated either it only registers on CSA when she comes off !! Not sure that you can prove daughter lives with b/friend they will maybe ask the pwc & we can guess what she will say cant we ? Totally unfair when we are all consistent payers but as children are over 19 & we(yes ,my husband & I are a team) have been paying all this time we consider its time they try to get jobs like my own daughter( that lives with us )had to do when she finished college !

I understand completely where your coming from, the system is desperately unfair unbalanced. Who can trust a system where all the PWC needs to do us stay on benefits and keep working age children in college to continue to bleed new families possibly even with younger children?

Continuing payments for a child at 19 has got to be the most controversial directive of the CSA.

Btw, I thought it was CMEC now?

clearingout

13Kent wrote: »

Some posters have said that this happens a lot, the NRP who would have been happy to have more contact with the child but has been denied that contact as it would have reduced the maintenance the PWC got. However once the maintenance comes to an end the PWC is then happy for the child to go and live with the NRP.

does it not occur to you that for some people, there is little option? that if housing benefit and other benefits are reduced and the 'child' isn't able to make a contribution at a decent level to the household, there is no option but to downsize to one bedroom and ask the 'child' to leave?

I really don't understand why it is assumed by many that the PWC is 'happy' to have their children live with the NRP when the money stops. Is it not, for many, a practical consideration? My children are young but I can already see that I will have to be making decisions about my future sooner rather than later - and one of those considerations will be about having to get rid of a good-sized family house to be able to manage financially. That's even considering that I remain healthy and in full-time work. It just won't be financially viable. My children will have to make their own way in the world once they leave school - I won't be able to afford to keep a roof over their heads unless they are able to contribute. This is a sad fact of life and nothing at all to do with being 'happy' about things or about treating them as 'cash cows'.