How long should child maintainence be paid?

shoe*diva79

moomoomama27 wrote: »

Yes, unfortunately I do, and I was one of them.

DH pays csa, but is on older scheme, it actually does make a difference to the end date. On the older scheme it ends the September after their exams at a level.

DH wants to give money directly to his child, not through the PWC, but cannot afford to do this if paying csa too. His son does not see a penny of maintenance, and the quicker the csa ends to the PWC, the quicker he can provide for his sons needs when he goes off to uni.

Really? Your step son does not have a roof over his head? Food? Heat?

It really does tickle me when the NRPP says how the kids dont see a penny. I think more the NRPP not seeing the bigger picture!

shoe*diva79

FBaby wrote: »

I do think it is fair that in the instance of the child still in FT education, that they should be still be supported by both parents, however, the money should be transferred to the child directly when they turn 18.

I dont agree with this. How many 18 year olds do you know studying and working full time so they can afford to live?

When my daughter turns 18, if I am not receiving CM then she will have to get a full time job pay me board from her wages. If I am receiving CM because she is studying then her CM will go towards her living costs and she wont need to pay board. Even if she has a part time job she can use it for usual teenage kid stuff - clothes, make up, driving lessons etc.

FBaby

shoe*diva79 wrote: »

I dont agree with this. How many 18 year olds do you know studying and working full time so they can afford to live?

When my daughter turns 18, if I am not receiving CM then she will have to get a full time job pay me board from her wages. If I am receiving CM because she is studying then her CM will go towards her living costs and she wont need to pay board. Even if she has a part time job she can use it for usual teenage kid stuff - clothes, make up, driving lessons etc.

You can still claim CB potentially tax credits, so that is money that goes towards a roof over their head, gas and eletricity in addition to direct contribution from the pwc. Everything else can be the child's responsibility to pay for (ie, phone, transport, clothes etc...) with the maintenance their recieve from the nrp. Depending on the amount received in maintenance, and the lack of tax credits etc...,in some cases, it might be fair to ask them to contribute out of the maintenance they receive. The point is that at 18, there are not a child any longer and should be given the opportunity to manage their own money, including the maintenance which has always been intended for them and not the pwc.

PlymouthMaid

I agree with ShoeDiva about he money not being given directly to the 'child' at 18 if she is still living with the other parent as there are still housing and food costs to be covered, the money is not just for the child to spend. If this had happened in my case, I too, would have had to ask the child to get a full time job for us to manage. Maintenance of children isn't just about their own pocket money.

cazziebo

The decider for me is

"If the parent was still living with the child, would they be subsidising their life?"

If the answer is yes, then maintenance is still payable. Whether it's paid to the PWC or direct to the child depends on what the child is doing e.g. studying, apprenticeship, member of one direction.

Having a mouth to feed, a body to heat and wash, a bed to provide all comes at a cost. To say there is no cost to this just demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of having a family.

When I was 17, I left home to go to university. I had a full student grant, housing benefit and the option of unemployment benefit during holidays. I had a choice of vacation and term-time part time jobs. Things are different now. Parents are expected to contribute and support until kids are way past 18. As Person_one says "Why should living in a different home exempt one parent from that responsibility?"

Marisco

maman wrote: »

I'd agree with that and it's not just about responsibility but what any parent who can afford it would want to do.


OP hasn't said what his DD intends to do when she finishes college but there will always be something that the money can be put to. If you stop giving it to her mum why not start saving it for your DD to help with a deposit later.


Finding out legally where you stand should be simple enough but that still leaves why you want to know. Is it your intention to stop paying anything?

What if it is? It's none of our business is it? He asked a legit question, no one knows his circumstances, he might have been struggling for years to pay CM for all we know, and now he's seeing a bit of light at the end of the tunnel.

cazziebo

Marisco wrote: »

g a bit of light at the end of the tunnel.

But for most parents, especially parents with resident children, maintenance is ongoing. Two of my neighbours have children still living at home in their 30s, paying nominal dig money. There is still a cost until that child is completely self sufficient.

(I've just done a Tesco order for my 24 year old who lives 300 miles away, in her first graduate job as a clinician within the NHS. I'm sure her dad, who left the family home when she was 2 years old, is still treating her in different ways long after official "maintenance" has finished.

Having a child is not a fixed term contract.

Marisco

cazziebo wrote: »

But for most parents, especially parents with resident children, maintenance is ongoing. Two of my neighbours have children still living at home in their 30s, paying nominal dig money. There is still a cost until that child is completely self sufficient.

(I've just done a Tesco order for my 24 year old who lives 300 miles away, in her first graduate job as a clinician within the NHS. I'm sure her dad, who left the family home when she was 2 years old, is still treating her in different ways long after official "maintenance" has finished.

Having a child is not a fixed term contract.

Hell's teeth, your not suggesting an NRP should still be paying CM are you???? :eek: One of the happiest days of our lives was when oh got a letter off the CSA saying the case was finally closed. :T That didn't mean we didn't give the "kids" money as and when though, only it was what we could afford, and not what we were told, regardless of our circumstances.

moomoomama27

shoe*diva79 wrote: »

Really? Your step son does not have a roof over his head? Food? Heat?

It really does tickle me when the NRPP says how the kids dont see a penny. I think more the NRPP not seeing the bigger picture!

It also tickle me when people ASSume higs without the full facts, making passive aggressive comments on something they know nothing about!

moomoomama27

cazziebo wrote: »

Does his son live with the PWC? Does the maintenance contribute towards the mortgage or rent, the utilities, the food, clothing, etc etc?

What does he live on if he "doesn't see a penny"?

No at the moment following an abusive row he's living with a friend, although the PWC still claims CB and CSA.

Before that he was expected to earn his own money to contribute to the household (while at college full time), he does not get clothes or shoes or essentials provided, his keep covers the electric and water, he bought his own food and the rent and council tax is paid through benefits she claims.

We help with some extras but dh has high maintenance and a second family. Thankfully he's in the process of moving closer so we can sort this all out.