To not pay stepchild’s private school fees. part 2

So? OP has already said ‘not my problem’. That’s established. She is and has been firm on that to her partner as well as the posters here.

If her partner doesn’t like it then he is free to leave.

I agree. But there's a big difference between them both sitting down, looking at the numbers and trying to work out a plan together which is fair and the OP going 'not my problem'. It may be that it's not viable or fair for the OP to pay, but her resistance seems to be more founded on the principle of it, than the effect it would have.

Yes, I think it’s totally fine for someone to say no that request. What I find deeply unattractive is the expectation that OP should assume financial responsibility for this child. Whether she can easily afford to or not is irrelevant to me.

I would be more than happy for someone with that level of entitlement to exit my life of their volition, not least because it saves me having to escort them.

@dontmalbeconme @Notsolittlebutstillsoyoung My point is mainly that the family is larger than just the OP, her partner and his son. We don’t know how many adult children the OP has, but she mentions that they’re living with her (plural) so at least two.

I think her children will understand that he needs stability but this is tricky, IMO. We have no idea what their childhoods were like nor what their needs are.

MN advice is always to treat children equally whenever possible so the OP has to consider all the children, adults or not. It sounds like that’s what she’s doing, but her DP is only focusing on his own child- which is understandable, but the OP can’t do the same.

These threads really have inspired a lot of filling in the blanks.

We have no idea.
It might be that her wealth has increased considerably since they were young, for example. It might be that she won the lottery 5 years ago.

At no point has she said that it would be a stretch for her,
Or cause a change in their lifestyle, hence why I'm assuming she is indeed rather wealthy!

In terms of how her 'kids' would feel about it, I'd expect them to realise that it's not ideal, but equally that it might be the best option in the circumstances, and not personal. If it made the difference between them getting no inheritance and getting some - yeah, be miffed, but if the percentage change would be tiny, I'd hope they'd be more generous.

In nuclear families where the children are a joint responsibility, sure. It’s extremely common for blended families to financially operate in the way OP and her partner do, however.

In most couples both would be happy to support the children in the household.

It's more about attitudes towards money than anything else. If having one less luxury holiday a year is more important to the OP then the wellbeing of the child of someone she loves, then that's prioritising money. It didn't mean she 'should' pay, but her maintaining an attitude of 'why should I' isn't partially very attractive character trait personally.

Its one thing to pay towards the general household expenses of your partner's child, but school fees is something different entirely. You are being unfair to the OP

I'd imagine that her adult children would probably understand why it was important for a traumatised, autistic child, who was abused by his mother and now has court ordered no contact with her not to face more upheaval by being dragged from their nurturing independent school that is providing stability. They hopefully had childhoods much better than his. Equality not equity.

But it does seem extreme, to have to split with your partner and sell the joint home, on account of school fees?

@Notsolittlebutstillsoyoung I doubt the OP is a multi-millionaire - her own children didn’t go to private schools.

How’s it going to make them feel if she does this? All children should be treated the same so if she spends this on her partner’s child, shouldn’t she give her own children the same or more? I hope she’s got deep pockets.

You'd actually find it attractive if someone who was a multi millionaire, casually said ' I know darling your child has suffered a lot, struggles with their mental health and neurodiversity and is happy where they are, and I know it wouldn't make much of a difference to me, but out of principle I'm going to say no because I really fancy going on another cruise'

There's a huge difference between that and saying no because it would actually impact.your finances in a meaningful way.

Generosity of spirit is very important to me though - not necessarily financially, but in terms of effort and time. If someone has the time, or ability, or yes, finances to help someone they say they love, but they don't because it's too much effort, then I wouldn't want them in my life because I'd walk through fire for them.

As has been said, repeatedly, the school is following a definition of household similar to that used by various government bodies.

You might not like it, but it's a thing. I am not sure why you keep bringing in irrelevant examples.

One concern I’d have is how it could affect the OP’s relationship with her own children. They didn’t go to private schools and if their Mum pays for another child to do so, what message does that send to them? They’re less important perhaps?

Plus they’re living with her and may need her financial help too. She’s being pulled in too many directions.

Assumptions about personal lives should not be used to make objective economic decisions.

Just because I’m someone’s girlfriend doesn’t obligate me to support their kids, mother, or dog groomer’s cousin.

We have a procedure for declaring two people a recognized economic and legal unit: marriage.

Sans that, they are separate individuals, and the nature of their relationship is no one’s business. If a platonic roommate wouldn’t be dunned, an unmarried girlfriend shouldn’t be either.

Yes. So?

Our sexual relationships should be irrelevant to our financial status. Not everyone takes money from people they sleep with.

That shouldn’t be the expectation, certainly, by third parties. “Can’t afford it? Get your boyfriend / girlfriend to pay.” How demeaning.

@No5ChalksRoad By your logic, as I said before, I could be a sahm and my partner could be Elon Musk, yet my child should be entitled to a bursary because we’re not married.

@No5ChalksRoad

The school are hardly delving around for friends and relatives to pay. They are looking at the (now sole) household of the pupil and the two adults who are not mates or colleagues, but are each other's partner.

Well that goes to show that ‘attractive’ is in the eye of the beholder. She’s prioritizing her own financial wellbeing and that of her own children. I’d consider her to be foolish if she did pay the schools fees, which isn’t the most attractive trait either.

But that is what bursaries ARE.

One could probably delve around in any student’s life and find some friend or relative who “could afford” to pay the fees. So what?

It’s the responsibility of parents alone.

It sounds like the son is midway through GCSEs and, as such, the school have increased obligations not to disrupt his learning by kicking him out unnecessarily.

DSS is 13 - it's in the OP of thread 1 - and so would not have started GCSEs yet.

The question asked was 'why would someone pay the fees in this circumstances' - my response was why some people may chose to do so. By saying that to do so would be compassionate is not saying that not doing so would indicate someone was not compassionate, that is your inference and not what I stated.

I said she would be within her rights to decline to contribute, and that wasn't my issue - my issue was her expecting someone else (the bursary which is usually funded by a mixture of a portion of fees from other parents, and charitable doners) to pay when she wasn't prepared to - which is hypocritical - 'I am not responsible for him so I'm not prepared to contribute but I expect others who have never even met him to contribute towards his fees'.

Actually marital status is binary.

They aren’t married. Whatever you think of their behaviour or living arrangements, they are no more married to one another than they are to their Amazon delivery driver.

We have no idea if their relationship is based on romance, camaraderie, pragmatic consideration or other. It’s irrelevant.

I know two women who have owned a house jointly and lived together platonically for 30 years. They are former neighbours of my late mother. The only difference between them and the OP/boyfriend is that the women don’t sleep together. Should they be dunned for one another’s financial obligations?

How do we know it's hard earned? But that's an aside.

It's more about attitudes towards money than anything else. If having one less luxury holiday a year is more important to the OP then the wellbeing of the child of someone she loves, then that's prioritising money. It didn't mean she 'should' pay, but her maintaining an attitude of 'why should I' isn't partially very attractive character trait personally.

If however that money would make a huge difference to their lives, that they'd be struggling or having to significantly cut back on their lifestyle, then I don't think that shows the same prioritisation of money.