Hi all

well I went to see my solicitor yesterday. He said in his 12 years as a brief he has never seen this type of consent order extension come to court for an "ordinary" person. He said that if I had pots of money or my son was severely disabled then yes, she might have a claim to extend the order.But she agreed to the terms of the order back and she has to live with it now.

Will wait and see what happens next friday now!

JOHN

We seem to have two threads going on this issue and I think I said on the other thread maintenance awarded through the courts depends on the need of the student and the ability of the parent to pay.

I don't think extensions of these orders come to court often in 'ordinary' cases because any maintenance that might be awarded would be outweighed by the legal costs so it makes more sense for everyone to negotiate and come to an agreement. In one such case that reached the first appointment stage and rather than proceed and incur the costs the father agreed to pay £20-£30 a week.

What needs to be kept in mind is with a lot of issues relating to children there is no absolute right or wrong and people have different attitudes which is reflected in the legal profession and judiciary. The law is open to interpretation and the only opinion which is binding is that of the judge. Unfortunately to get that far would typically cost each party somewhere between £3-6k.

Thanks for the reply but we are not talking about children here. My son, in 5 days time will be the age that I married his mother. He has taken the choice to go to uni and knows he will come out of it with a student debt. I will help him but he is an adult now and has to accept that his choices incur responsibilities will ultimately mean him standing on his own two feet.

I'm glad to hear you will be helping your son but I think you are perhaps missing the point. We all need to work within the law as it exists rather than invent a system we wish existed, but doesn't. In the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 a "child" isn't defined and under s29(1) of the Act the court cannot order financial provision for a child who has attained the age of 18 unless;

"(a) the child is, or will be, or if an order were made without complying with either or both of those provisions would be, receiving instruction at an educational establishment or undergoing training for a trade, profession or vocation, whether or not he is also, or will also be, in gainful employment; or

(b) there are special circumstances which justify the making of an order without complying with either or both of those provisions."

So your ex can make an application and the court has the authority to grant maintenance for the benefit of a 'child' over 18. (Whether the court will award maintenance or not and how much depends on the individual circumstances.)

Please don't shoot the messenger!

Thank you for that Fiona.But I am still confused! Surely my solicitor was aware of this act? And if that is the case why did my original consent order state "full time secondary education" and not the wording above?

Yes it is confusing. Here in Scotland all parents have a duty to support their offspring aged 18-25 whilst in education or training. Period.

"why did my original consent order state "full time secondary education" and not the wording above?"

In the first instance an order for child maintenance doesn't extend beyond the end of secondary education or their 18th birthday although maintenance for over 18s might be included if it's thought the 'child' will be going into education or training.

"Surely my solicitor was aware of this act?"

I should hope so, but presumably so is the mother's solicitor. Your solicitor is duty bound to identify your ­object­ives and work in your best interests by supporting your POV as long as it's tenable. But the law is open to interpretation and the judge's discretion so the other sides solicitor will look for legal arguments to support your ex-wife's POV. In this case it might well be along the lines it couldn't be envisaged your son would go to university and the original settlement didn't take account of the fact, so there is a change of circumstance. It will be interesting to hear how you get on.