A recent High Court decision, Re H (A Child) [2025] EWHC 2361 (Fam), provides useful guidance on when child maintenance can be extended beyond the age of 18, and how this interacts with the Child Maintenance Service (CMS) regime.

The Case

The dispute arose after HHJ Oliver extended an existing child maintenance order until August 2028, covering the child’s tertiary education. The father appealed, arguing he had not been properly notified of the application to extend the order, and that the order went beyond what the law allowed.

On appeal, Ms Justice Henke dismissed his arguments. She found that:

• Although the application to extend was made informally, it was clearly flagged in the mother’s skeleton argument and discussed in open court before the child turned 18.
• Section 29 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 allows the court to extend maintenance while a child remains in education or training.
• The order to August 2028 matched the expected end of the child’s university course and was therefore justified.

The Legal Framework

In most cases, child maintenance is dealt with by the CMS, which has exclusive jurisdiction once an assessment is in place. However, the court retains limited powers:

• Under s.29 Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (and similarly under Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989), maintenance orders can be extended beyond 18 if a child is in education or training, or where there are exceptional circumstances (e.g. disability).
• The court can only step in where there is no CMS assessment in force or where specific circumstances justify an order.
• Case law such as UD v DN [2021] EWCA Civ 1947 confirms that an application made before the child turns 18 can still lead to an order covering the period beyond majority.

Informal Applications – Are They Enough?

One striking feature of this case was that the mother’s application was made within her skeleton argument for an enforcement hearing, rather than by formal application notice. The father argued this was procedurally unfair. The court disagreed, holding that:

• Informal applications can suffice, provided the other party is aware of them and has the chance to respond.
• This echoes earlier authorities, including Tattersall v Tattersall [2018] EWCA Civ 1978, where the Court of Appeal recognised the flexibility of the family courts when dealing with variation or extension applications.

Why It Matters

For parents and practitioners, the case reinforces several points:

• Child maintenance doesn’t necessarily end at 18 – support often continues while a child is at university or in vocational training.
• Timing is crucial – an application made before the 18th birthday preserves the court’s jurisdiction, even if determined later.
• Informality has limits – while the court allowed an application raised in a skeleton argument here, best practice remains to make a clear, formal application.

The CMS vs Court Orders

The interplay between the CMS and the court remains complex. The CMS generally has priority, but the court retains a role where:

• There is already a court order in place (as here), or
• The case involves education beyond 18, or
• There are exceptional needs that fall outside CMS jurisdiction.

Final Thought

This case underlines the flexibility but also the discipline of the family courts: they will extend child maintenance beyond 18 where justified, but applications must be grounded in evidence and raised in time. For separated parents, it is a reminder not to assume financial responsibility ends on a child’s 18th birthday—especially where university or further training lies ahead.