I think you have three separate issues here.
First, post the
exact child-support termination clause. Not a summary. If it really says support ends at the age of majority when the child is out of school, the wording matters considerably.
The 19-year-old is where I would start.
You say this child graduated high school, has been working full-time for more than a year, and is now merely
considering a paid apprenticeship.
Once a child is past the age of majority, ongoing support requires a present basis for continued dependency. Post-secondary education can provide that basis, but there actually needs to be something capable of objective assessment.
In other words:
- What program?
- What institution or apprenticeship?
- Proof of enrollment or registration?
- Start date?
- Course/training load?
- Employer?
- Hours and wages?
- What other circumstance is said to prevent this adult child from withdrawing from parental support?
If none of that presently exists, then what was the basis for continuing support after high school ended?
That is the question.
A possible apprenticeship in the future does not establish dependency today, and it certainly does not retroactively fill a year during which the child was an adult, not enrolled in school and working full-time.
If circumstances later change and the child actually enters a program that creates a new basis for dependency, that can be addressed
when those objective circumstances exist.
I would therefore establish the chronology very precisely:
18th birthday → last day enrolled in high school → graduation → start of full-time employment → any subsequent enrollment → proposed apprenticeship
Do not let “he may become an apprentice” blur those separate periods.
Your second problem is this statement:
support has not been updated for five years and the amount you pay is below the table amount for your current income.
That means you should not assume the final answer is simply “mom owes me an overpayment.”
Do the complete accounting:
actual income → correct table amount → number of children entitled → amount actually paid → difference
You may have overpaid during one period and underpaid during another. Work out the entire ledger.
Third, I would be very careful about simply stopping FRO.
There is a difference between establishing that support
should have terminated earlier and FRO still enforcing an existing support obligation.
Frankly, based on the questions you are asking, I think you should
hire a family-law lawyer now.
You already have an agreement/order, FRO enforcement, two post-majority children, a potential retroactive termination issue and five years of support that may need to be reconciled. These are not issues I would try to learn procedurally by trial and error.
Take the complete agreement/order, FRO records, your income information, the child's school/employment chronology and the written communications with mom to counsel.
Then try to settle it before turning it into a larger court fight.
I would have your lawyer prepare a
proper Rule 18 Offer to Settle setting out the actual resolution you are seeking: the younger child's termination date, the resulting support amount, any retroactive accounting and the treatment of FRO.
Make the settlement position clear and reasonable.
Then give the other side a proper opportunity to accept it or make a meaningful counter-offer.
There is a reason this should happen
before unnecessary litigation. A written offer creates a clean record of what could have been resolved without a judge. If the other side refuses a reasonable resolution and you later have to seek substantially the same relief from the court, that settlement history can become important on costs.
Your lawyer can advise you on the timing and mechanics. If settlement does not resolve it after a reasonable opportunity, then bring the appropriate motion and seek the relief you already clearly offered to settle.
That is a far better litigation posture than stopping FRO yourself, exchanging accusations and then asking the court to clean up the resulting mess.
For the 21-year-old, use the same discipline.
“Could be finished university in May” is not enough.
Confirm the actual enrollment, program and completion date. When the factual basis for post-majority support actually ends, deal with it then.
So I would come back with:
- The complete support clause.
- The younger child's 18th birthday.
- Last date actually enrolled in school.
- Graduation date.
- Date full-time employment started and approximate income.
- Whether there has been any enrollment since.
- The actual particulars, if any, of this apprenticeship.
- Your income and support paid for each of the last five years.
- What mom previously agreed to in writing.
- The older child's actual university completion date.
And lose the “greedy ex” description.
Her motives don't matter nearly as much as this question:
What objective basis existed for continuing post-majority support during the period when this adult child was out of school and working full-time?
“Maybe an apprenticeship later” does not answer it.
Get the facts organized, retain counsel, make the settlement offer first, and litigate only what the other side will not reasonably resolve.
