Maintenance payments after 18 years old

daisiegg

I didn't realise my husband's daughter must be so unusual. She is close to 18 now and my husband still sees her every other weekend, Friday night to Sunday afternoon, come rain or shine. Plus longer in school holidays and a one to two week foreign holiday each summer.

clearingout

If a PWC so much as suggested he/she thought that stopping contact when no maintenance was paid there would be screams of 'children are not pay per view' and 'children have a right to a relationship with both parents' and other such comments. Yet here we have an almost universally accepted agreement that it's OK to demand something in return for payments made - that 'something' being the regular company of the young person in question? How does that work?

We have a step mum who believes that because the step dad and mum both work and therefore have, in her opinion, enough money (and holidays and new cars), her husband is absolved of any financial responsibility for his child (or have I read that wrong?). We have a father who, on the basis of the information given here, hasn't really put up much of a fight to see his child regularly. Just a kind of acceptance that things haven't gone quite the way he would have liked post-divorce.

Personally, I would look closer to home. Adolescent children/young people don't really like spending time in the company of those who appear to resent their existence and who seem to believe that they are owed time because of the financial support provided rather than spend time with them because they are interesting or are interested in their lives. Moreover, I think young people prefer to spend time with step parents who support them without question rather than those who are resentful because they believe mum and step dad earn more to the extent that step mum is seeking the support of strangers to justify stopping maintenance payments as soon as possible. I mean, honestly, if that is the prevailing attitude in your father's home, where would you prefer to be?

SandC

I would continue to pay even if legally he doesn't have to - but direct to his daughter and not necessarily as much as is being paid in 'maintenance' to her mother - as it stands this money will not necessarily have ever been recognised by his daughter but perhaps if he writes to her and tells her that when she's 18 he won't be continuing payments as he was but would transferring £x per month allowance.

I had part time jobs from 16 onwards and was working full time from 18 but I was still supported by my parents financially until I left home (and even then over the years they are 'there' if needed, that's what parents do, if they can) even if it was just that my board payments to them were more token than 'real life'.

Best of luck whatever you decide but I do agree with the others that it won't encourage contact from her if they money is just stopped.

Callie22

paulineb wrote: »

My dad is wealthy, he wasnt always but he has been for a long time. I see it from both points of view, but it staggers me that a dad can be left with no contact from his kids yet hes expected to keep paying for them until they are 19 or 20, when that child wont see him and has a stepdad who presumably also contributes.

I think theres a point where you might feel like you are being used like a cash point and getting nil back.

From the other side of that, it staggers me that some people seem to think they can have a child and then pay nothing towards it at all, irrespective of the access situation. If you are an adult and have a child, it should never, ever be a case of tit for tat - I pay x amount so I'm entitled to x amount of attention, and if I don't get my attention, you don't get your money. I have to say that I find that a pretty awful way to behave. It saddens me that in so many divorce cases, the adults stop being adults and expect their kids to handle a bad situation with more maturity than they did.

bestpud

Looking at this from a different angle:

When your daughter goes to university, she will be assessed for student finance on your ex's income.

If you don't pay her then she will be in the same boat as every other student assessed on that income bracket.

If you pay her then she will be getting more than other students from a household with the same income.

Therefore you do not need to feel guilty about her starving in a squalid student flat because you stopped paying.

Her mother will have had your maintenance money on top of any state benefits she was entitled to, so lone parents with custody are actually better off than most families if the ex pays regular maintenance.

So your ex may feel the pinch when the handouts stop but she will only be going back to the same level of income a family of equal means without child maintenance payments would be at, no less.

Personally, I'd welcome her with open arms if she could be bothered to be civil but other than that, I'd let her get on with it.

If it's too much effort to write an email or text every now and again then she needs a wake up call, not financial rewards.

bestpud

Callie22 wrote: »

From the other side of that, it staggers me that some people seem to think they can have a child and then pay nothing towards it at all, irrespective of the access situation. If you are an adult and have a child, it should never, ever be a case of tit for tat - I pay x amount so I'm entitled to x amount of attention, and if I don't get my attention, you don't get your money. I have to say that I find that a pretty awful way to behave. It saddens me that in so many divorce cases, the adults stop being adults and expect their kids to handle a bad situation with more maturity than they did.

Once the child is 18, they are an adult and should take responsibility for their relationship with the parents.

The OP has carried on paying regardless but he doesn't have to be pooped on as well as walked over.

If the parents must act like adults then so must the adult child in my book.

Callie22

bestpud wrote: »

Once the child is 18, they are an adult and should take responsibility for their relationship with the parents.

The OP has carried on paying regardless but he doesn't have to be pooped on as well as walked over.

If the parents must act like adults then so must the adult child in my book.

Whilst many 18 year olds are adults legally, emotionally they are not. You cannot expect an 18 year old and a 30/40/50 year old to operate on the same emotional level, and you can't expect an 18 year old to view this in the same way that we as adults do. I can pretty much guarantee you that all the daughter will see in this is her dad walking away. Equally we are only hearing the OPs side of the story, and we don't really know the background in terms of the mother or the child. I think there's more to this than we know, but that's the way with the internet - you only ever hear one side of the story. I don't think it's reasonable to expect the child to take responsibility for a relationship that may not necessarily exist, regardless of their age. However, that doesn't absolve a parent from taking financial responsibility for that child that does exist. Yes, legally they can walk away from that, but there will be consequences if that's the path they follow. In this case (from what we've been told) it looks like the only relationship that exists here is the financial one, and if the OPs partner ends that then he will probably end all chance of a real relationship with his daughter when she's grown up enough to want one. If he walks away now, you wouldn't blame her for being cynical if he does get back in touch in the future. If it were me, then my first thought would be well, you only want to know me now because there's no financial responsibility.

More broadly, I think it's a shame that people are thinking of their relationships with their children in terms of their pockets - I don't have to pay for you now that you're 18, so I'm not going to. Pretty harsh thing for a child to hear from their parent, don't you think? Most resident parents don't cut off all support for their kids once they turn 18, and indeed that would be seen as a pretty odd and heartless way to behave. Many children living with their resident parents aren't particularly grateful for the financial support they receive, especially when they're teenagers. It seems a bit odd that when there's a non-resident parent, there's this expectation that the kids have to 'perform' to get support. No wonder kids end up so messed up in divorces ...

clearingout

bestpud wrote: »

Looking at this from a different angle:

When your daughter goes to university, she will be assessed for student finance on your ex's income. it is not the OP's ex that is being discussed here, it is her partner's ex. We are also discussing what will happen whilst the daughter is still in full-time further education, not higher education. Regardless, she will be assessed on household income which, with two full-time incomes coming in, probably means she'll be entitled to nothing other than a maintenance loan.

If you don't pay her then she will be in the same boat as every other student assessed on that income bracket. from a household perspective, yes. However, if the OP's partner/father of the young person in question is allowed to bow out of supporting her through university, do you consider it acceptable that the step father's income is included with at least an on-high (Government) expectation that her PWC's household (to include the step father) makes up any difference for her?

Her mother will have had your maintenance money on top of any state benefits she was entitled to, so lone parents with custody are actually better off than most families if the ex pays regular maintenance.The child's mother is re-married and the OP has stated both adults in the household work. It is highly unlikely, therefore, that the household has been entitled to any benefits/tax credits specifically attached to the child for some time now. Plenty of 'lone parents with custody' are indeed very badly off as their work opportunities are reduced, they have massive childcare costs, struggle to maintain property of pay for holidays of put money away for a rainy day or contribute to pension pots for their future. And no decent NRP would be satisfied that their child was being brought up on benefits alone. The woman in question, however, isn't a lone parent so I guess that's pretty irrelevant anyway.

So your ex may feel the pinch when the handouts stop but she will only be going back to the same level of income a family of equal means without child maintenance payments would be at, no less. Maintenance is now a 'handout'? You don't believe that both parents have a responsibility to shoulder the cost of bringing up a child they jointly created?

If it's too much effort to write an email or text every now and again then she needs a wake up call, not financial rewards.I don't disagree that if the daughter would like her father to provide some kind of financial support beyond the statutory requirement, she perhaps needs to look at building bridges with her father. However, there is more than likely a back story here which we are not aware of and which may well mean that our opinion on that matter would be different if it were the mother or daughter herself posting. There is more than one side to every argument and we have no idea what may have prompted this young woman to remove herself from her father's life.

Did you read the original post? You seem to have got the wrong end of the stick as to who is who in this scenario?

KxMx

I sympathise deeply with anyone experiencing a family estrangement, but before people vilify the daughter here please remember we are only getting one side of the story.
My father i'm sure tells all and sundry his version of events which couldn't be further from the actual reality.

bestpud

clearingout wrote: »

Did you read the original post? You seem to have got the wrong end of the stick as to who is who in this scenario?

Yep!

Why should she be better off at university than children from families of equal means? It's ok for children from unbroken home.

It's irrelevant of its the OP or their partner - my points stand.

I have no problem with the new partner supporting them. Do you think it would be ok for them to benefit twice - from dad and step dad?

How about families where there is children from the new relationship in the family. Is it ok for them to cope with what they get while the step sibling has extra money given to them?

It is a handout if he carries on paying the ex, yes.