The case of Re N (A Child) recently came to an end-possibly. This case had been backwards and forwards to court since 2005. It contains a number of lessons to be learnt-not least and which is not the subject of this article-the advantages of parents sorting out matters concerning their children themselves and without involving the courts. The money and time spent by these parents on lawyers and court proceedings is staggering and would have been far better employed in caring for the young child who they were both clearly devoted to.
The case does however give useful guidance on the principles which will apply to dependency and when child maintenance will come to an end. Financial provision for children is dealt with under Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989. This provides for a court to be able to order that maintenance be paid during a child's dependency and/or for so long as they are in full-time education.
The first question which was answered by the judge in Re N was when dependency will cease. It was apparent that there was no fixed rule and some judges had considered the relevant age as being 21 and others at 18. The age of majority is now firmly fixed by statute at 18 and the learned judge held that save in exceptional circumstances (such as disability) dependency would cease at 18 unless the child was completing further tertiary education.
It was recognized by the Court that these days there are an increasing numbers of adults who continue to live at the parental home. It was not for the courts to impose legally binding obligations to maintain on unwilling parents simply because the other parent chose to voluntarily assume a financial, though not a legal burden. It was accepted by the judge that a parent responsible for the financial maintenance of their child is entitled to be protected against the child's prolonged or indefinite postponement of attendance at university. However, he shrewdly observed that those who reach the age of university attendance may choose to take a gap year between school and university or indeed between completing study for a degree and commencing employment.
The consequence of these decisions is that had there been any doubt, it is now well established that a court may not order maintenance to be paid for a child who is not in further education past the age of 18 when dependency ceases in usual circumstances.
What is full-time education will in most instances be obvious. This will certainly include a three or even four year degree course. A question may arise when a part-time course is undertaken but the obligation to pay maintenance will include other full-time approved further education courses.
Does any continuing education past the age of 18 bring about an obligation on a parent to continue paying maintenance? I think not and especially where the - child - is either undertaking part-time work or has time available to do so.
In just about all cases where maintenance is ordered under Section 1, the maintenance is payable to the parent with whom the child lives (usually the mother) for the benefit of the child. This is because a child who is under 18 will be unable to give a receipt for the money and very obviously is too young to apply it properly for his or her maintenance. This is a situation which changes when the child obtains their age of majority. Were there to have been a residence order in favour of the mother it will no longer have effect and the child is of course able to live wherever they choose.
Accordingly it follows that there is no need or purpose for the maintenance to which the child is entitled to be paid through the mother. It is the child who has the right to receive maintenance and not the mother. If there is a failure to maintain it is the child who could enforce through the court.
There is therefore no possible doubt concerning a parent