Child Maintenance After 18: What the Courts Say
A recent High Court judgment, Re H (A Child) [2025] EWHC 2361 (Fam), offers helpful clarification on the circumstances in which child maintenance can continue beyond a child’s 18th birthday, and how this sits alongside the statutory role of the Child Maintenance Service (CMS).
Background to the Decision
The case concerned a child maintenance order that had originally been due to end at 18. HHJ Oliver extended the order until August 2028, aligning it with the anticipated completion of the child’s university studies.
The father appealed, contending that he had not been given proper notice of any application to extend maintenance and that the court had exceeded its legal powers by making an order past the child’s majority.
The Appeal Outcome
The appeal was dismissed by with each of the father’s arguments being rejected. In doing so, the court confirmed that:
While the request to extend maintenance had not been made through a formal application, it was clearly identified in the mother’s argument and openly addressed in court before the child reached 18.
Section 29 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 gives the court authority to continue child maintenance where a child remains in education or training.
Extending the order until the expected end of the child’s degree course was both logical and lawful.
The Legal Position Explained
Ordinarily, child maintenance falls within the exclusive remit of the Child Maintenance Service once an assessment exists. That said, the court’s jurisdiction is not entirely displaced. Limited powers remain, including:
The ability to extend maintenance beyond 18 under s.29 Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 or Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989, particularly where a child is still in education or has exceptional needs, such as a disability.
The power to act where no CMS assessment is in force, or where the circumstances justify a court-based order.
Importantly, previous case laws confirm that as long as an application is made before a child turns 18, the resulting order may cover the period after majority.
A notable aspect of the case was the way the application was raised. Rather than issuing a separate application notice, the mother included her request within a skeleton argument prepared for an enforcement hearing. The father argued this approach was procedurally unfair.
The High Court disagreed, emphasising that:
Formal applications are not always essential, provided the responding party is given clear notice and a proper opportunity to engage.
This reflects the pragmatic approach long adopted in family proceedings, as seen in cases such as Tattersall v Tattersall [2018] EWCA Civ 1978.
For both parents and family law practitioners, the judgment highlights several practical lessons. In particular, it highlights that financial support for a child does not automatically stop at 18, especially where higher education or vocational training continues. In turn, making an application before the child’s 18th birthday preserves the court’s jurisdiction and while flexibility exists, relying on informal applications carries risk. Clear and properly issued applications remain the preferred approach.
CMS and the Court: Who Takes Priority?
The relationship between the CMS and the courts remains nuanced. While the CMS will usually take precedence, the court may still intervene where:
A court order already exists,
The issue concerns education extending beyond 18, or
The child’s needs fall outside the CMS framework.
Overall, this decision illustrates both the adaptability and the rigour of the family courts. Maintenance beyond 18 will be ordered where justified, but only where applications are timely and supported by evidence. For separated parents, the message is clear: financial responsibility may continue well beyond a child’s 18th birthday, particularly where university or further training is part of the picture.