I have posted before, but this is another question.
My daughter is 19 this month. We have recently been in touch (via facebook!!), after many years of being estranged, and I am hoping to re-establish our relationship. My relationship with the mother is non-existent.
I have a Consent Order stating that payments are made for the benefit of the child until she reaches 18 or ceases full-time eduation whichever is the later or further order.
My daughter is going to university in October, and I was hoping to arrange to pay my daughter direct, rather than via her mother, which will, I hope, help to improve the relationship with my daughter, and stop the feeling that the mother is not using all the payment for the benefit of my daughter!
I had a letter from the court last year, telling me that the payments will stop this month - my daughter has been taking her A levels. I now get told that payments will continue through to university.
As I say, I do not want to stop payments, I just hope to use this as a way of building up a relationship with my daughter and take the ex out of the picture.
At the beginning of my order, there is reference to the provisions of the Child Support Act 1991. The Act defines a child as someone under age 19. So surely the payments should now cease, as I always understood?
Thanks in advance.
Is the wording through TO university or just through university? I have read a few posts on maintenance after a child leaves college and from what i have read the general consensus is that maintenance is paid throughout the summer holidays until the beginning of september and then stops. I believe this is how child benefit address it too. After this you are free to pay your daughter direct.
The problem is you have a court order so the CSA rules wouldn''t normally apply. "Ceases full-time education" is ambiguous and open to interpretation. It could mean ceasing secondary education or first degree.
What exactly does the recital say in relation to the Child Support Act 1989?
Under a section titled "On the Basis that", point 2 says "Having due regard to the provisions of the Child Support Act 1991, the parties have made an arrangemnt for the payment of maintenance for child support."
My logic, therefore, was that the Act defines what a "child" is?