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

If DP is a decent parent, then that child is not going to be pulled from school and dumped into whatever state school has a place.

The options are either OP contributes, directly or indirectly, or she no longer resides in the same household as, nor has any financial connection to her DP and DSS.

It doesn't matter how you twist it about, at the end of the day, those are the only options.

It presumably already does, given that he’s already spending £600/1200 a month on school fees. She doesn’t have to contribute towards more, or agree to further subsidise her partner so he can.

It’s entirely up to her partner to manage his own financial responsibilities here, which doesn’t mean dumping them on OP. If he can’t afford the fees then the son will have to go to state school, or he can move out if he wants to maintain the bursary.

This is a particular unusual and sad set of circumstances though.

I agree with you op. I would not sign anything...

HOW is her partner a cheeky fucker trying to make a mug out of her??

School have requested details of the household financials before renewing the bursary. DP has passed that request on to OP. OP has refused to fulfil the request (which is her prerogative). This means DSS will lose the bursary. DP is a bit annoyed about this.

However, if the household income IS assessed, seems likely DSS will lose the bursary anyway.

(presumably if there is no bursary, DSS moves onto a “normal” school contract and there is no joint and several liability)

So DP and OP need to decide if there is any alternative to pulling DSS out of this school and sending him to state. That might be a loan from OP to DP, or OP covering more of the bills, or DP moving out with DSS (though won’t lead to UC with some house ownership in the mix) to try and keep the bursary. Or DP appealing to relatives for a loan/gift for fees.

This whole thing's basically a cautionary tale about cohabiting with someone, unless you've discussed and agreed in advance a plethora of potential scenarios which could occur, and know that you're both on the same page with these.

I totally get it, but don't think people necessarily think through all the consequences of moving in together. That as a couple you can both decide that your money is your own, but if there is any outside money coming in, whether that's from benefits, student loans, bursaries, that it's up to them whether they're assess you together or separately.

But the other side to that argument is that OP chose to live as a family with the child. The Grandparents did not chose to be Grandparents, they just happen to be.

I get that. But grandparents have a greater connection to that child than the OP.

Her partner is a CF trying to make a mug out of her.
He needs to seek help from grandparents and the childs family, not OP.

But the bursary eligibility isn't calculated on Grandparents' income. It's calculated on the household income of the household in which the child resides (plus an assessment of NRPs contribution, athough presumably that's been waived in this case due to the court order).

The only way OP can stop her income being used in the assessment is for her not to reside in or be in any way financial linked to the household in which DP and DSS live. Or to refuse to provide details, in which case the bursary will be completely removed.

Exactly - the school are saying “time for the bursary review and assessing the parent(s) and the household(s) of students with bursaries, which for X is now the household of his dad as he no longer lives with his mum and stepdad at all”

OP, suggest any grandparents be contacted as they are actually relatives of this child.

If you split there is absolutely no further connection to his child.
The idea that you could be split up but paying fof his childs education is so beyond batshit.

Focus on your children and your pension and leave this man to sort his own shit out.

You sound more than generous as it is.
Don't be a mug.

Well they should not be bringing a child into their set up if they are not committed long term.

I don't think there's much choice about bringing him in. He needs to live with them.

But yes, this does bring up a whole bunch of unanswerable questions about what's fair.

Who has been telling the school your business?

Surely they have no idea what your income and assets are until you've provided the information, so they're not 'expecting ' a wealthy partner to cough up.

It doesnt really matter what happened in the past.

The current situation is that DS lives with OP and DP, and his DM has no contact under court order.

It seems that the bursary rules in the situation where the child lives with one parent and has no contact/relationship with the other is that the bursary entitlement will be calculated on the household income in the home the child resides.

Therefore, all the while OP lives in the same household as her DSS her income will be included in the assessment and any bursary awarded will be reduced accordingly.

If she refuses to provide income details, then they will remove the bursary, as income reporting will be a stipulation.

So either she pays, directly or indirectly, or she no longer lives in the same household as her DP and his son.

I think what I don't get is - if mum has a husband, and his income was not only assessed but he signed whatever it is the school wants OP to sign - would they not be asking him for the money he effectively guaranteed? Or does this now not count as being a "household" of the son so it's moot?

Its not great for the school's reputation either. If other parents are struggling to pay and word gets around that Master Moneybags that gets dropped off at school by his stepmum in a helicopter is paying 50% fees.

You have some big decisions to make OP. Clearly you've commited to cohabitating in a relationship that isn't actually that serious to you and dragged children into it. But it isn't going to be as simple as 'I'll ask him to leave and he'll get free money'. You've committed to him and will now need to make big financial decisions in financially untangling your relationship.

They'll be losing money on 50% fees tbh.

It's reasonable for them to not want to subsidise a child with charitable funds who lives in a home with a household income above their threshold. They cannot just let someone that could afford to pay not pay because they simply don't want to.

If the household income in the child's home is above the threshold for help, they will not get a bursary, it's that simple. All the meetings and fiscussions in the world won't change that.

So the choice is that OP pays (directly or indirectly) or she needs to not reside in or be in any way financially linked to the household this boy lives in with his dad.

Hobson's choice, but the choice OP needs to make, nonetheless.

Very short signted on the school's part- they probably think your DP will pay fullfees and already counting their money, while in reality they willlose a student.

He's been there on 50% of the fee. You don't know if they are able to carry on doing that. They may, or reduce it again.

The thing I don't understand is surely if her DP has to move out (which seems to be the way OP is leaning), then OP is going to lose his monthly contribution to their household expenses anyway?

If that contribution is £1200 or more, then financially she is the same off (or worse!) as if she helped pay the fees, so him moving out seems a 'cutting your nose of to spite the child' type scenario.

I don't agree with OP being used as a cash cow now the mother is absent, but that is what the discussions with the school should be for, to come up with something realistic. But saying you are unwilling to pay ANYTHING towards the child, when you are happy to lose that amount if her DP moves out seems petty to be honest?

I agree 100%.

I wonder how Op would behave if her partner was a widower?

Is she upset because his ex wife has MH issues and appears to be dodging paying for her son? (She did mention she thought his ex was 'scamming' the powers that be in order to get PIP etc.)

Or would she still behave like this if the boy's mum had died?

The result in terms of fees would be the same.

There are many 'mature' couples who live separately by choice until their children are independent, in order to give them stability and also avoid these financial issues.

It's not unheard of an it's quite possible to keep the relationship going.

There is a limit to how far a private company will be charitable, sounds like they have already been helping to allow him to goto this school, if you can't afford it or are unwilling to pay then he surely has to join a public school like most of the population.

True, but as a household they'd be expected to stump up the money, so in reality it would impact her financially. Even if her partner 'paid' all of it, his ability to muck in for the rest of the household income would be reduced, so should be subsidising.

Surely this is no different than he if he goes to university, given that's also based on household income

Yes, the household income would be assessed but the OP wouldn’t be liable for any costs or expenses

You are going to get a shock again if they decided to goto University... You may not like it, or agree with it, but ability to pay is always determine on household income.