Get money out of child ISA due to lifelong disability

housebuyer143

jimjames said:

housebuyer143 said:

Aretnap said:

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/close-void-or-withdraw-investments-from-a-junior-isa-as-an-isa-manager#death-of-the-child

Money in a junior ISA is pretty much irrecoverably locked away until the child's 18th birthday. The only grounds for early withdrawal are if the child dies or is terminally ill. (Or to rectify obvious mistakes like sending the money to the wrong account number). So I'm afraid it doesn't look like there's any way of accessing it for now.

They're right that they'll have to go through a legal process to manage the money on the child's behalf when they turn 18 - as you would expect of you wanted to access someone else's bank account to be honest.

Thanks - Seems a little harsh that parents are going to be forced to spend money to become to 18 years olds power of attorney and all the stuff that comes with that, while those that don't can carry on as their appointee as they have always been.

Presumably the situation as you've described it means they would have to get power of attorney anyway when the child reaches 18 so although a laborious process it's not really something they'd be able to avoid if the ISA didn't exist.

I don't think you need to do this normally, as you can just act as an appointee for your child. 

I suppose it makes sense but when you save for your child for when they are an adult you assume it will be to help them get a leg up in life, not just to get your own money back in the future which is probably less because of inflation 🙄 

elsien

Except it stopped being their own money the minute they put it in the child ISA. 

masonic

housebuyer143 said:
I suppose it makes sense but when you save for your child for when they are an adult you assume it will be to help them get a leg up in life, not just to get your own money back in the future which is probably less because of inflation 🙄 

It absolutely isn't their own money, and it would be considered financial abuse for them to use it as such if they are given the ability to control it in the future. I'm sure you know that, but it is worth saying for the benefit of anyone else reading.

You haven't shared how long it is until the child reaches 18, but given such disabilities are often diagnosed at a relatively early age, there is no reason to think that it couldn't be invested with an overwhelming chance of growing ahead of inflation. It wouldn't be appropriate for it to languish in cash for a decade or more, so if that was the original plan, it should be revisited.

housebuyer143

I'm willing to concede after reading the replies that I suppose there isn't an issue with it being stuck in there as it is with any other childs account. I suppose although it's frustrating they can spend the money on their child for future things so it will be useful then. 

Having to spend money to go through the courts to get it outv still seems unfair though especially to people with smaller amounts trapped in there.

masonic

housebuyer143 said:

Having to spend money to go through the courts to get it outv still seems unfair though especially to people with smaller amounts trapped in there.

That money will need to be spent with or without the JISA. Without someone paying to arrange a deputyship or equivalent legal powers, the then adult child would be put into a perilous position with respect to exploitation, fraud, or even just naive behaviour, with the parents lacking the ability to take control if anything went wrong. If, on the other hand, it isn't needed for anything else, it is unlikely it would be needed for the JISA, so, happy days, they'll access it themselves at 18 just as originally intended, with the parents able to fulfil a more informal role if required.

onomatopoeia99

elsien said:

If the child lacks capacity to manage their own money when they turn 18, it is possible that they would also lack the capacity to appoint a power-of-attorney. In that situation, the parents would need to apply to the court of protection for a deputyship. This is not a quick process due to backlogs in the court of protection, although depending on how young the child is, things may have changed by then. 
it’s not a fight, it’s a legal process and a safeguard for the adult in question to make sure the money is accountable and being used in their best interests. 

https://www.gov.uk/become-deputy Otherwise anyone could be trying to access other people’s accounts by saying they lack capacity, with no real proof and banks scratching their heads over who to believe. 

Most families are responsible. A minority aren’t. 

Unfortunately the process is so difficult and if successful imposes a lifelong duty on the deputy to account for every penny spent and received that many parents that have done it regret the decision due to the amount of extra work it causes them when already caring for a child with no capacity, and wish they'd left the child's money to rot in the JISA.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-65304648

elsien

The parents don’t have to do it. They can pass it over to a professional deputy such as a solicitor. 

And they are managing someone else’s money. So they should have to account for all of it. Why would they not? 

And it’s not a difficult process. It’s time-consuming, waiting for it to be set up but it’s not difficult.

And families do steal their disabled relatives money. Or keep all of the benefits and not allow the person any sort of allowance.  In my job I’ve seen older people with dementia been ripped off by thousands by their children. Yes it’s a minority but as I said before it happens. And as the person themselves can’t monitor it then someone else needs to. 

housebuyer143

elsien said:

The parents don’t have to do it. They can pass it over to a professional deputy such as a solicitor. 

And they are managing someone else’s money. So they should have to account for all of it. Why would they not? 

And it’s not a difficult process. It’s time-consuming, waiting for it to be set up but it’s not difficult.

I think the point is you are trusted to manage your childs benefits sometimes from birth and then suddenly they turn 18 and you are not?

What has changed suddenly that means the parent is now potentially going to do things to the childs detriment? It doesn't really make sense. 

I completely get deputyship for adults who need support like elderly etc but for a child who has and will always need their parents support it seems unnecessary.

elsien

Because £100 a week in benefits is very different to tens of thousands in a bank account.
Because at 18 they become adults, and the legislation that applies to all adults applies to the disabled person. As it should.
in terms of safeguards, there isn’t a difference between an older person with dementia and a younger person with a learning disability. They both have an equal right to make sure that they are protected.
Because from 16 upwards  there is a presumption of capacity until proved otherwise.
Because some disabled children leave home as adults and live a life independent of their parents.  Even if they still need support 24/7. 

housebuyer143

elsien said:

The parents don’t have to do it. They can pass it over to a professional deputy such as a solicitor. 

And they are managing someone else’s money. So they should have to account for all of it. Why would they not? 

And it’s not a difficult process. It’s time-consuming, waiting for it to be set up but it’s not difficult.

And families do steal their disabled relatives money. Or keep all of the benefits and not allow the person any sort of allowance.  In my job I’ve seen older people with dementia been ripped off by thousands by their children. Yes it’s a minority but as I said before it happens. And as the person themselves can’t monitor it then someone else needs to. 

Yes people definitely do, my relative has been doing this with my nan who just died and the first thing she did was raid the safe so these people should be protected for certain. 

I'm talking about people who have no concept of money and so as long as they were being cared for it wouldn't matter to them if they had savings or how they were invested or saved. 
I believe most parents could be expected to act in their child's best interests especially if they have been doing so and managing their money from birth. In fact most are allowed to continue to do so without being their deputy, as long as they don't need access to their bank account. 

£100 a week very quickly adds up to tens of thousands of pounds.