Discussion:
Maintenance linked for full time education...
(too old to reply)
n***@nowhere.com
2011-03-18 16:46:45 UTC
Permalink
I am not paying via the CSA (private agreement) but maybe somebody
here will know.

The consent order (done 8 years ago) sets the child maintenance at
£X/month, index linked, at 50% for each of the two children, so long
as they are in full time education, stopping at age 21. I am paying
£2500/month total in CM.

My older son, 18, has unfortunately been heavily skiving, with the
full knowledge and occassional support (writing skive notes) from his
mum.

I was kept in the dark about this (for obvious reasons), discovering
it by chance. During his most recent full year at college his absence
rate was about 18% which is very high, and in the current year (at
another college; he dropped out of the last one) he is again skiving
big-time, and achieving very little.

He's quite open about this, saying it doesn't interest him.

I am getting fed up with paying over a grand per month to the ex, per
child, with one of the children just pissing around. Obviously he's
her meal ticket so she keeps the pressure up on him to do something
educational.

Is there any precedent for how far the "full time education" qualifier
can be pushed before it becomes a pisstake?

I would rather stop the 50% of the maintenance and spend some money on
stuff like job specific courses and driving lessons.

I am tempted to tell the ex I am going to set an attendance limit e.g.
98% if she wants the money.

Any suggestions appreciated...
Jake
2011-03-18 19:01:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by n***@nowhere.com
I am not paying via the CSA (private agreement) but maybe somebody
here will know.
The consent order (done 8 years ago) sets the child maintenance at
£X/month, index linked, at 50% for each of the two children, so long
as they are in full time education, stopping at age 21. I am paying
£2500/month total in CM.
My older son, 18, has unfortunately been heavily skiving, with the
full knowledge and occassional support (writing skive notes) from his
mum.
I was kept in the dark about this (for obvious reasons), discovering
it by chance. During his most recent full year at college his absence
rate was about 18% which is very high, and in the current year (at
another college; he dropped out of the last one) he is again skiving
big-time, and achieving very little.
He's quite open about this, saying it doesn't interest him.
I am getting fed up with paying over a grand per month to the ex, per
child, with one of the children just pissing around. Obviously he's
her meal ticket so she keeps the pressure up on him to do something
educational.
Is there any precedent for how far the "full time education" qualifier
can be pushed before it becomes a pisstake?
I would rather stop the 50% of the maintenance and spend some money on
stuff like job specific courses and driving lessons.
I am tempted to tell the ex I am going to set an attendance limit e.g.
98% if she wants the money.
Any suggestions appreciated...
Full time education is defined as being at least 16 hours per week of
attendance - which is a little over three hours per day - should be useful
for your purposes.

If he is 18 and is doing three A-Levels, this should have him in college for
20 hours per week, usually on at least 4 days. If he is missing 18% of days,
it is not full time.
Robbie
2011-03-18 19:53:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jake
Post by n***@nowhere.com
I am not paying via the CSA (private agreement) but maybe somebody
here will know.
The consent order (done 8 years ago) sets the child maintenance at
£X/month, index linked, at 50% for each of the two children, so long
as they are in full time education, stopping at age 21. I am paying
£2500/month total in CM.
My older son, 18, has unfortunately been heavily skiving, with the
full knowledge and occassional support (writing skive notes) from his
mum.
I was kept in the dark about this (for obvious reasons), discovering
it by chance. During his most recent full year at college his absence
rate was about 18% which is very high, and in the current year (at
another college; he dropped out of the last one) he is again skiving
big-time, and achieving very little.
He's quite open about this, saying it doesn't interest him.
I am getting fed up with paying over a grand per month to the ex, per
child, with one of the children just pissing around. Obviously he's
her meal ticket so she keeps the pressure up on him to do something
educational.
Is there any precedent for how far the "full time education" qualifier
can be pushed before it becomes a pisstake?
I would rather stop the 50% of the maintenance and spend some money on
stuff like job specific courses and driving lessons.
I am tempted to tell the ex I am going to set an attendance limit e.g.
98% if she wants the money.
Any suggestions appreciated...
Full time education is defined as being at least 16 hours per week of
attendance - which is a little over three hours per day - should be useful
for your purposes.
If he is 18 and is doing three A-Levels, this should have him in college for
20 hours per week, usually on at least 4 days. If he is missing 18% of days,
it is not full time.
For Child Benefit purposes full time education is defined as an average
of 12 hours per week during term time. This definition is used by the
CSA and payment of Child Benefit is used as the guiding line when
deciding that child maintenance is payable.

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/childbenefit/child-16.htm

http://www.csa.gov.uk/en/case/leaving-education.asp

I realise that the OP has a private agreement but if the son is
undertaking a non advanced course of education (ie below degree level
education) then I assume that his ex is receiving Child Benefit and the
above links may be of some use.
--
Robbie
n***@nowhere.com
2011-03-18 20:53:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robbie
Post by Jake
Full time education is defined as being at least 16 hours per week of
attendance - which is a little over three hours per day - should be useful
for your purposes.
If he is 18 and is doing three A-Levels, this should have him in college for
20 hours per week, usually on at least 4 days. If he is missing 18% of days,
it is not full time.
For Child Benefit purposes full time education is defined as an average
of 12 hours per week during term time. This definition is used by the
CSA and payment of Child Benefit is used as the guiding line when
deciding that child maintenance is payable.
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/childbenefit/child-16.htm
http://www.csa.gov.uk/en/case/leaving-education.asp
I realise that the OP has a private agreement but if the son is
undertaking a non advanced course of education (ie below degree level
education) then I assume that his ex is receiving Child Benefit and the
above links may be of some use.
I saw the CSA stuff and the 12hrs/week definition.

I also found the bit about having to pay CM all the time the child is
"enrolled" at college, terminating only the 1st week of September of
the first *non-pursued* academic year. Googling suggests that an awful
lot of men have been around that block. This sounds like the ex could
totally take the piss, simply by enrolling a 16 year old into a
"hopeless" A-level college course which is skived off to the maximum
degree possible without actually getting kicked out.

This is all CSA stuff but I'd imagine a judge would use similar
guidelines for private agreements.

There are very few parents' meetings at colleges (maybe 1 per year)
and I did not go to any of them, but had I found out earlier about the
skiving it would not probably have made any difference.

I did ask my original (very good, male) solicitor these questions but
he no longer does family law and put me onto a new female partner who
turned out to be like most of them: an all-out man-hater who stroppily
told me what the consent order said (as if I couldn't read it myself).

In this case the 18 year old wants to drop out ASAP i.e. at Easter. I
presume the CM would end immediately after the Easter holiday. The ex
will be onto him like a ton of bricks to stop him leaving, of course.
n***@nowhere.com
2011-03-18 20:56:23 UTC
Permalink
I was also amazed to find that many men have a consent order where
they pay all the time the kid is in full time education, without any
age limit.

That is a ludicrously incompetent piece of drafting. It's true that it
is easier to be a "permanent student" today, with all the bogus
degrees, but it has always been possible to hang around a university
for many years and nobody should have drafted a piece of crap like
that.

And, apparently, it holds up!
S
2011-03-19 13:58:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robbie
Post by Jake
Post by n***@nowhere.com
I am not paying via the CSA (private agreement) but maybe somebody
here will know.
The consent order (done 8 years ago) sets the child maintenance at
£X/month, index linked, at 50% for each of the two children, so long
as they are in full time education, stopping at age 21. I am paying
£2500/month total in CM.
My older son, 18, has unfortunately been heavily skiving, with the
full knowledge and occassional support (writing skive notes) from his
mum.
I was kept in the dark about this (for obvious reasons), discovering
it by chance. During his most recent full year at college his absence
rate was about 18% which is very high, and in the current year (at
another college; he dropped out of the last one) he is again skiving
big-time, and achieving very little.
He's quite open about this, saying it doesn't interest him.
I am getting fed up with paying over a grand per month to the ex, per
child, with one of the children just pissing around. Obviously he's
her meal ticket so she keeps the pressure up on him to do something
educational.
Is there any precedent for how far the "full time education" qualifier
can be pushed before it becomes a pisstake?
I would rather stop the 50% of the maintenance and spend some money on
stuff like job specific courses and driving lessons.
I am tempted to tell the ex I am going to set an attendance limit e.g.
98% if she wants the money.
Any suggestions appreciated...
Full time education is defined as being at least 16 hours per week of
attendance - which is a little over three hours per day - should be useful
for your purposes.
If he is 18 and is doing three A-Levels, this should have him in college for
20 hours per week, usually on at least 4 days. If he is missing 18% of days,
it is not full time.
For Child Benefit purposes full time education is defined as an average
of 12 hours per week during term time. This definition is used by the
CSA and payment of Child Benefit is used as the guiding line when
deciding that child maintenance is payable.
Does it mean being registered for 12 hours of classes or actually
attending 12 hours of classes?
Robbie
2011-03-19 15:08:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by S
Post by Robbie
Post by Jake
Post by n***@nowhere.com
I am not paying via the CSA (private agreement) but maybe somebody
here will know.
The consent order (done 8 years ago) sets the child maintenance at
£X/month, index linked, at 50% for each of the two children, so long
as they are in full time education, stopping at age 21. I am paying
£2500/month total in CM.
My older son, 18, has unfortunately been heavily skiving, with the
full knowledge and occassional support (writing skive notes) from his
mum.
I was kept in the dark about this (for obvious reasons), discovering
it by chance. During his most recent full year at college his absence
rate was about 18% which is very high, and in the current year (at
another college; he dropped out of the last one) he is again skiving
big-time, and achieving very little.
He's quite open about this, saying it doesn't interest him.
I am getting fed up with paying over a grand per month to the ex, per
child, with one of the children just pissing around. Obviously he's
her meal ticket so she keeps the pressure up on him to do something
educational.
Is there any precedent for how far the "full time education" qualifier
can be pushed before it becomes a pisstake?
I would rather stop the 50% of the maintenance and spend some money on
stuff like job specific courses and driving lessons.
I am tempted to tell the ex I am going to set an attendance limit e.g.
98% if she wants the money.
Any suggestions appreciated...
Full time education is defined as being at least 16 hours per week of
attendance - which is a little over three hours per day - should be useful
for your purposes.
If he is 18 and is doing three A-Levels, this should have him in college for
20 hours per week, usually on at least 4 days. If he is missing 18% of days,
it is not full time.
For Child Benefit purposes full time education is defined as an average
of 12 hours per week during term time. This definition is used by the
CSA and payment of Child Benefit is used as the guiding line when
deciding that child maintenance is payable.
Does it mean being registered for 12 hours of classes or actually
attending 12 hours of classes?
The Child Benefit definition at the link I provided states:

What counts as full-time education

Full-time education means more than an average of 12 hours a week during
term time is spent on tuition, practical work, supervised study or
taking exams not counting breaks for meals and homework.

Examples of further education are:

* GCSEs and qualifications up to and including A level.
* NVQ level 1, 2, or 3.
* BTEC National Diploma, National Certificate and 1st Diploma.
* SCE higher grade or equivalent.

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/childbenefit/child-16.htm


It seems to suggest that the student must attend college for those 12
hours but it need not all be in class.
--
Robbie
NotMe
2011-03-18 23:57:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by n***@nowhere.com
My older son, 18, has unfortunately been heavily skiving, with the
full knowledge and occassional support (writing skive notes) from his
mum.
Do what?
He is 18 and his mother is writing skive notes for him?

Why not tell his friends that he is still having to ask his mother
what to do.
Zapp Brannigan
2011-03-19 08:17:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by n***@nowhere.com
I am tempted to tell the ex I am going to set an attendance limit e.g.
98% if she wants the money.
If he's 18 then his parents have no right to be informed of his attendance
record. A letter from a education establishment stating he was on roll as
a fulltime student would be sufficient to trigger the consent order
obligation - IMHO IANAL YMMMV etc
Postman Pat
2011-03-19 11:09:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zapp Brannigan
Post by n***@nowhere.com
I am tempted to tell the ex I am going to set an attendance limit e.g.
98% if she wants the money.
If he's 18 then his parents have no right to be informed of his attendance
record. A letter from a education establishment stating he was on roll as
a fulltime student would be sufficient to trigger the consent order
obligation - IMHO IANAL YMMMV etc
I have to agree. A great recipe for taking the piss and a lesson for
divorcing men to put in a clause forcing the mother to issue them with
a consent letter authorising contact with the college.
Zapp Brannigan
2011-03-19 12:33:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Postman Pat
Post by Zapp Brannigan
Post by n***@nowhere.com
I am tempted to tell the ex I am going to set an attendance limit e.g.
98% if she wants the money.
If he's 18 then his parents have no right to be informed of his attendance
record. A letter from a education establishment stating he was on roll
as a fulltime student would be sufficient to trigger the consent order
obligation - IMHO IANAL YMMMV etc
I have to agree. A great recipe for taking the piss and a lesson for
divorcing men to put in a clause forcing the mother to issue them with
a consent letter authorising contact with the college.
The only consent which matters is that of the adult student.
n***@nowhere.com
2011-03-19 15:59:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zapp Brannigan
Post by Postman Pat
Post by Zapp Brannigan
Post by n***@nowhere.com
I am tempted to tell the ex I am going to set an attendance limit e.g.
98% if she wants the money.
If he's 18 then his parents have no right to be informed of his attendance
record. A letter from a education establishment stating he was on roll
as a fulltime student would be sufficient to trigger the consent order
obligation - IMHO IANAL YMMMV etc
I have to agree. A great recipe for taking the piss and a lesson for
divorcing men to put in a clause forcing the mother to issue them with
a consent letter authorising contact with the college.
The only consent which matters is that of the adult student.
Don't you see the potential for abuse?

An 18 year old could attend college just enough to not get chucked
out, while colluding with his mum on collecting the maintenance.

I bet there is some case law on this, because this issue is probably
much bigger than it appears.
n***@nowhere.com
2011-03-23 22:08:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Postman Pat
Post by Zapp Brannigan
Post by n***@nowhere.com
I am tempted to tell the ex I am going to set an attendance limit e.g.
98% if she wants the money.
If he's 18 then his parents have no right to be informed of his attendance
record. A letter from a education establishment stating he was on roll as
a fulltime student would be sufficient to trigger the consent order
obligation - IMHO IANAL YMMMV etc
I have to agree. A great recipe for taking the piss and a lesson for
divorcing men to put in a clause forcing the mother to issue them with
a consent letter authorising contact with the college.
My ex is now paying my 18 year old son £100/month to get him to stay
at college.

Of course the justification is to give him an incentive to work, which
one cannot argue with.

The other side of it is obvious. She gets more than 10x that in CM,
which would end of the lad left full time education, or left her
house.
Jake
2011-03-24 01:13:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by n***@nowhere.com
Post by Postman Pat
Post by Zapp Brannigan
Post by n***@nowhere.com
I am tempted to tell the ex I am going to set an attendance limit e.g.
98% if she wants the money.
If he's 18 then his parents have no right to be informed of his attendance
record. A letter from a education establishment stating he was on roll as
a fulltime student would be sufficient to trigger the consent order
obligation - IMHO IANAL YMMMV etc
I have to agree. A great recipe for taking the piss and a lesson for
divorcing men to put in a clause forcing the mother to issue them with
a consent letter authorising contact with the college.
My ex is now paying my 18 year old son £100/month to get him to stay
at college.
Of course the justification is to give him an incentive to work, which
one cannot argue with.
The other side of it is obvious. She gets more than 10x that in CM,
which would end of the lad left full time education, or left her
house.
Make him a better offer?
n***@nowhere.com
2011-03-26 17:30:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jake
Post by n***@nowhere.com
Post by Postman Pat
Post by Zapp Brannigan
Post by n***@nowhere.com
I am tempted to tell the ex I am going to set an attendance limit e.g.
98% if she wants the money.
If he's 18 then his parents have no right to be informed of his attendance
record. A letter from a education establishment stating he was on roll as
a fulltime student would be sufficient to trigger the consent order
obligation - IMHO IANAL YMMMV etc
I have to agree. A great recipe for taking the piss and a lesson for
divorcing men to put in a clause forcing the mother to issue them with
a consent letter authorising contact with the college.
My ex is now paying my 18 year old son £100/month to get him to stay
at college.
Of course the justification is to give him an incentive to work, which
one cannot argue with.
The other side of it is obvious. She gets more than 10x that in CM,
which would end of the lad left full time education, or left her
house.
Make him a better offer?
LOL I did think of that :) :)

Loading...