court orders and the one-year rule

Maybe I am confused about how things work but I am certainly puzzled about something:

I have seen it said here many times that a year after a court order that includes child maintenance either party can then abandon the order and go to the CSA.

There is also a lot of discussion about court orders stating that CM should be paid until the end of university education.

However, CSA are out of the picture at age 18.

Does this mean that court orders including CM up to the end of university are not worth the paper they are written on, because the NRP could abandon them unilaterally? Could the NRP just decide after a year to go to the CSA and then stop paying when the child reaches age 18? Or does the order then come back into force at that point?

Or have I got all this completely wrong?

Best wishes,
Sadie

You have it about right sexy.

If the CM is included in a Consent Order after one year either mum or dad can make an application to the CSA and then they take over.

The payer cannot however just abandon the court order after a year as the recipient could enforce the order in court unless the CSA are involved.

When a child reaches 18 (for most) the CSA no longer have jurisdiction as you rightly say, but if still in education the child can make there own application to court for support, if this does happen the presumption is strong that the application will be successful unless the payer is very skint indeed, its also worth mentioning that if the payer has gone on to have more children it does not absolve them from the responsibility to the first chlid/ren.

If SM and CM is agreed or ordered then you have the option of a connell order (segal if short term) this protects both mum and dad from a CSA application because even if the CSA say the payer needs to pay x amount more the SM element is reduced £1 for £1 against the increase.

Clear as mud init.

So you can't just go back and revive the order at age 18? Seems a bit tough to ask teenagers who don't want to rock the boat to take their parent to court when payment beyond 18 was written into the original order.

I'm not going to get SM (and neither is he) so a Connell order is not an issue. But I would like to be able to protect the children from him going to the CSA just so that he can stop paying later unless they take him to court.

It also means that if his income increases so that in the short term I would be better off if I went through the CSA, I am risking the children's future by doing so.

Hm. I think there is a problem here, particulary when payment beyond 18 is written into a consent order. A cynical NRP could agree (possibly persuading the PWC to take less of something else in order to have the payment for the children through university) and then just renege on the agreement. Not that we can do much about it...

Sadie

I`m afraid not its one or the other by consent order/judgment or CSA, without boring the pants off you there are jurisdictional issues so they don`t work hand in hand.

And your quite right i`m yet to hear of any child using court for maintenance once they are 18 even when a judge has said they will get it, what child would want to take NRP to court even when morally they should.

I think the issue for the NRP in this situation is that CM is paid to the PWC, it may be that the NRP will willingly pay their child directly rather than via the PWC, in that case the end result is that the child is supported through education.

LB

As far as I am concerned I would be happy for my ex to pay my children directly once they are at university - if he continued to pay me I would only have to hand it over to them to help with living costs in any case. I would even be prepared to have this written into the court order.

But there's been evidence on here over the years that some NRPs are not willing to support university costs at all and think the children should be independent at that stage. So it's a real pity that even if it is written into a court order there is a way to avoid paying it.

Best wishes,
Sadie