Our expert says:
I'm not sure I understand here. I'm not sure what the usual practice is at Maintenance Courts, but surely by 21 a child should no longer need maintenance ? And isn't the age of majority now 18, and not 21 ? The idea that you must pay so long as the person is not earning an income sounds truly daft --- what if the kid decides to never bother to get a job and is 47 and remaining unemployed --- but the ex still receive maintenance payments ?
And if the 16 year old is living with you --- why should the mother who is not caring for that child, receive any maintenance at all, for that child ? Similarly, it's unusual for someone to keep an ex-wife on his medical aid, rather than his current partner.
Uf the divorce order says till 21, that should settle the matter, especially if the child is self-sufficient --- and again, if the child is maintaining himself / herself --- why should the MOTHER receive maintenance for a child she is not maintaining ?
If this man is not paying anything towards the maintenance of his child of 1 with you, then go to Maintenance COurt and have the court decide on a fair amount which he would then have to pay. If he WANTS voluntarily to pay gifts to the other children and to his ex, this is his privilege, though it gets confusing when these gifts are called Maintenance. But the court should not consider these voluntary gifts when deciding what he should afford to pay for his tyounger child.
The information provided does not constitute a diagnosis of your condition. You should consult a medical practitioner or other appropriate health care professional for a physical exmanication, diagnosis and formal
advice. Health24 and the expert accept no responsibility or liability for any damage or personal harm you may suffer resulting from making use of this content.