I have been reading this correspondence with sorrow but no real surprise.
The thing that struck me, when I saw the terms of the order, is that the drafting is terrible. On the face of it, the maintenance ends when he leaves uni for training or gainful employment or whatever the wording actually was. So is it still payable if he becomes a drop out ? Oh I know, it''s not easy for graduates these days, and perhaps one could justify making some allowance to give the child a chance to find a job, but you see my point.
The problems that arise ( and seem to be arising with increasing frequency ) can be summarised as follows.
1. The words '' full time education '' are certainly wide enough to include postgraduate degrees. In theory, you can remain a student all your life. But leaving aside the super rich, it''s beyond the means of most parents to pay for more than the completion of the first degree and my experience, such as it is, suggests that judges will generally not expect parents to do more.
For these reasons, it is essential, in my view, that parents decide how much financial support they can afford for a child going through uni and then make sure the order is drafted in a way which accurately reflects that intention.
2. The second problem, as you now know, is gap years. I''m not necessarily opposed to gap years and I''ve seen orders which make specific provision for them. However, again, in my opinion, the order should (i) make it clear that a gap year is intended and (ii) impose a definite limit.
3. Orders in favour of children commonly provide that the maintenance is paid to the mother. This of course is fine when the child is a minor, but perhaps not when the child is away at uni and Mum is holding back some of the maintenance. Again, I''m sure most mothers would never dream of doing this, but you know what I mean. The position is complicated even more when the
child maintenance is payable along with spousal maintenance.
When I first saw your post I was inclined to think along these lines.
Maintenance orders can be limited in time. They can be expressed to be for a definite term ( say five years ending on a definite date ) or until the happening of a specified event ( for example a child reaching the age of 18 ).
Now it''s well settled that if, to use a very clear example, you have a maintenance order in favour of a wife which ends, shall we say, on the 31st December 2013, the maintenance would no longer be payable after that date. Any application to extend must be made before the order expires. If the recipient applies for an extension on the 2nd January 2014 the order has expired and can''t be revived. This is a bit simplistic, I know, but you get the point.
My first thought was that this might help you, but the problem seems to be that the order doesn''t say that the maintenance ends on the completion of the course. It ends only if he gets a job, even if it''s only as a trainee.
What I think could help you is section 28 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. This provides that an order cannot be made in favour of a child over 18 unless the child is receiving instruction at a full time educational establishment or is undergoing vocational training. This is a simplistic statement and a detailed look at the relevant section is necessary ; but on the face of it the Court has no power to make an order in favour of an 18 year old who is not in some form of education or training.
I''m not unmindful of haway''s point that you don''t want to spend more in resisting the order than you would if you paid up. And I have over simplified the position deliberately to help you understand the issues.
The point is that maintenance orders in favour of children have to end some time, unles perhaps the child is handicapped in some way.
You can''t accept a maintenance order that is completely open ended. It simply has to have a limit. I concur with Charles'' advice because, although you need some help, I am now retired and couldn''t help you anyway.
Good luck.
LMM
