what are the costs of my studying child?
It's commonly heard: "you have to pay for your child until he or she is 21 years old." But what exactly is the situation?
By law, parents are maintenance obligated for their children. Until their eighteenth birthday, people are minors by law and are under the custody of (in principle) their parents. It is obvious that the costs of raising and caring for minors are the responsibility of the parents. But after that? Article 1 : 395a BW stipulates that parents are obliged to provide for the costs of study and maintenance of their adult children who have not yet reached the age of 21. We call the "children" between the ages of 18 and 21 young adults.
Supposedly, a child's parents divorced during the age of minority. In the divorce, the court has determined that father must pay a sum of €250.00 in child support to mother. By law, this obligation then continues automatically ("by operation of law") when the child turns 18. The contribution must then be paid to the child, but the parents may agree that, as long as the child still lives with mother, father will continue to pay to mother.
But now. A lot changes the moment your child turns 18. It is no longer a minor, so there is no longer a care arrangement (often called a visitation arrangement). The care allowance that is included in the child support calculation is then no longer applicable. The child is also no longer insured on the parents' health insurance policy and must take out his or her own health insurance. Often the child is entitled to care allowance from the tax authorities. But often the child also starts further education. In short: in many cases, the contribution established during minority no longer meets the child's needs at that time.
Therefore, to determine the costs of studying adolescents and the contribution that both separated parents must pay, the so-called WSF18+ standard is often used. This is the table for 2022:
Overview 1. Standard amounts for living expenses.
A. Vocational education
Standard amount living at home: € 542.41
Standard amount living away from home: € 766.06
B. Higher education
Standard fee: € 932.87
For vocational education a distinction is made between students living at home and students living away from home, but not for higher education.
In principle, these standard amounts apply as the need of the young adult student. Both parents must provide for this in proportion to their ability to pay. In procedures, however, it is often discussed whether certain items should be deducted from this. Take the care allowance. The adolescent pays premiums for his health insurance and receives care allowance. In a judgment of the 's-Hertogenbosch Court of Appeal of September 3, 2020 (ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2020:2722), the court excluded the care allowance. The court ruled that the care allowance is included in the standard amount. However, the court did take into account an additional item of €100 for health insurance premiums. It is not entirely clear what the court based this on. The Court of Appeal refers to "findings of the Alimony Expert Group", but does not specify this further. On the other hand, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal, in its judgment of August 25, 2020 (ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2020: 2411), did take into account the care allowance. I personally notice that in proceedings on this subject, the courts think differently about this, as well as about the so-called "housing component." What do we do with students living with their parents in higher education? Do we deduct a housing component from the standard amount there because he does not incur housing costs? That does not seem to be the intention, because higher education does not use different amounts for resident and non-resident.
And what about the young adult's own income? Some students earn a pretty penny on the side. Do you deduct those costs from the standard amount (after which you divide the remainder between both parents)? In the lower courts you often see that the judge deducts a certain percentage (10%, 15% and 25% are common amounts) from the standard amount as being the portion that the student must be able to provide for himself. But is that correct? Legally, no. In 2016, an interesting case came before the Supreme Court for review. What was the case? The young adult was not studying and indicated he would not study again. He had joined a company as an employee. The Court of Appeal of 's-Hertogenbosch ruled that there was no longer a need for a contribution. But the Supreme Court (HR Sept. 30, 2016, ECLI:NL:HR:2016:2234) overturned this ruling, considering that the court's decision was contrary to the legal system.
In fact, it then seems to come down to assuming the need of a young adult. According to this Supreme Court ruling, one could argue that the young adult's own income is thus disregarded. Yet that remains to be seen. In the case in question, the court had determined that the parents' maintenance obligation ended as a result of the adolescent's own income. This is contrary to the legal system. Supposed that instead of terminating the maintenance obligation, the court had set the contribution at zero (in connection with the adolescent's own income), that ruling would probably have stood, is the general legal opinion. In any case, it is true that judges usually take own income into account.
Struggles between parents over the contribution to their adolescent's expenses are often very unpleasant for the child. They often feel like "too much" and that they have to account for everything. Don't let it come to that and make good agreements with each other in time and in quiet consultation, which everyone can move forward with. If necessary I will gladly advise you as a lawyer or inform and guide you as a mediator.
By law, parents are maintenance obligated for their children. Until their eighteenth birthday, people are minors by law and are under the custody of (in principle) their parents. It is obvious that the costs of raising and caring for minors are the responsibility of the parents. But after that? Article 1 : 395a BW stipulates that parents are obliged to provide for the costs of study and maintenance of their adult children who have not yet reached the age of 21. We call the "children" between the ages of 18 and 21 young adults.
Supposedly, a child's parents divorced during the age of minority. In the divorce, the court has determined that father must pay a sum of €250.00 in child support to mother. By law, this obligation then continues automatically ("by operation of law") when the child turns 18. The contribution must then be paid to the child, but the parents may agree that, as long as the child still lives with mother, father will continue to pay to mother.
But now. A lot changes the moment your child turns 18. It is no longer a minor, so there is no longer a care arrangement (often called a visitation arrangement). The care allowance that is included in the child support calculation is then no longer applicable. The child is also no longer insured on the parents' health insurance policy and must take out his or her own health insurance. Often the child is entitled to care allowance from the tax authorities. But often the child also starts further education. In short: in many cases, the contribution established during minority no longer meets the child's needs at that time.
Therefore, to determine the costs of studying adolescents and the contribution that both separated parents must pay, the so-called WSF18+ standard is often used. This is the table for 2022:
Overview 1. Standard amounts for living expenses.
A. Vocational education
Standard amount living at home: € 542.41
Standard amount living away from home: € 766.06
B. Higher education
Standard fee: € 932.87
For vocational education a distinction is made between students living at home and students living away from home, but not for higher education.
In principle, these standard amounts apply as the need of the young adult student. Both parents must provide for this in proportion to their ability to pay. In procedures, however, it is often discussed whether certain items should be deducted from this. Take the care allowance. The adolescent pays premiums for his health insurance and receives care allowance. In a judgment of the 's-Hertogenbosch Court of Appeal of September 3, 2020 (ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2020:2722), the court excluded the care allowance. The court ruled that the care allowance is included in the standard amount. However, the court did take into account an additional item of €100 for health insurance premiums. It is not entirely clear what the court based this on. The Court of Appeal refers to "findings of the Alimony Expert Group", but does not specify this further. On the other hand, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal, in its judgment of August 25, 2020 (ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2020: 2411), did take into account the care allowance. I personally notice that in proceedings on this subject, the courts think differently about this, as well as about the so-called "housing component." What do we do with students living with their parents in higher education? Do we deduct a housing component from the standard amount there because he does not incur housing costs? That does not seem to be the intention, because higher education does not use different amounts for resident and non-resident.
And what about the young adult's own income? Some students earn a pretty penny on the side. Do you deduct those costs from the standard amount (after which you divide the remainder between both parents)? In the lower courts you often see that the judge deducts a certain percentage (10%, 15% and 25% are common amounts) from the standard amount as being the portion that the student must be able to provide for himself. But is that correct? Legally, no. In 2016, an interesting case came before the Supreme Court for review. What was the case? The young adult was not studying and indicated he would not study again. He had joined a company as an employee. The Court of Appeal of 's-Hertogenbosch ruled that there was no longer a need for a contribution. But the Supreme Court (HR Sept. 30, 2016, ECLI:NL:HR:2016:2234) overturned this ruling, considering that the court's decision was contrary to the legal system.
In fact, it then seems to come down to assuming the need of a young adult. According to this Supreme Court ruling, one could argue that the young adult's own income is thus disregarded. Yet that remains to be seen. In the case in question, the court had determined that the parents' maintenance obligation ended as a result of the adolescent's own income. This is contrary to the legal system. Supposed that instead of terminating the maintenance obligation, the court had set the contribution at zero (in connection with the adolescent's own income), that ruling would probably have stood, is the general legal opinion. In any case, it is true that judges usually take own income into account.
Struggles between parents over the contribution to their adolescent's expenses are often very unpleasant for the child. They often feel like "too much" and that they have to account for everything. Don't let it come to that and make good agreements with each other in time and in quiet consultation, which everyone can move forward with. If necessary I will gladly advise you as a lawyer or inform and guide you as a mediator.