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

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

Frankly, I think this has exposed a fault line in the relationship where there is no coming back from.

• If the op does not contribute, and the son leaves the school, that is likely to have long-term repercussions for their relationship, especially if it negatively affects the son's mental health and/or life prospects.
• If the op does not contribute and the father is worried about the son leaving the school, the only choice he has is for them to sell the house and live separately. Potentially for a decade. It's unlikely the relationship would survive that.
• If the op does contribute, it's clear (and understandable) that she's not happy about this, and long-term the sort of bitterness which I think would result would drive the relationship apart. Basically I think she'd have to be comfortable about paying it, which evidently she isn't.

Father has to choose between his son and his partner, and the op has to choose between her partner and money.

Or... this 50% pupil leaves, the 'bursary pot' is then free to offer 25% bursaries to two other pupils who might otherwise leave (following the VAT introduction) and its net position is better re fee income.

Reduced fees. Better for the school to have parent paying 50% than £0 as they are under subscribed. Schools will not reject a pupil just because the parent has an issue with fees.

The email the OP's partner got would be a generic 'Your son is now living somewhere else, we need details of the household income'.

This is exactly the type of situation where a school should be charitable.

From everything you have said, OP, it seems that the current policy of the school is to assess the household financials of two adults with whom the child resides. That used to be his dad and his mum - now it is you and his dad.

Every child on a bursary has a need for that bursary, and the assessment criteria for them will be largely objective/repeatable, so that the school can justify its decisions to any parents who miss out or to any trustees of the bursary fund. There may be a child/children on full fees who will have to leave without bursary support because one parent has lost their job - redistributing your DSS's bursary if his household no longer needs it (in the view of the bursary criteria) would also be an act of charity to those children.

The OP and her boyfriend haven’t made a long term commitment. They haven’t adopted one another’s children, and the boyfriend didn’t support OP’s children while they were in school.

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

But buying a house jointly is a commitment, so your argument is a bit flawed.

This boy has already had a huge upset in his life. He has lost his mother effectively, his parents are divorced, he's got autism, and now he's living with his dad's girlfriend and her adult children.

Poor kid.

IMO when kids are involved you're either a family unit and pull together or you aren't.

If someone doesn't want to share the costs of bringing up a partner's child they ought to end the relationship or live separately until the child is an adult. Plenty of couples manage that.

Anyway, the first port of call was the dad contacting the school so the OP jumped the gun and should have waited for that to play out as it seems the school are willing to find a solution.

Having worked in private schools with some SEND children I did say they would try to help.

But if i have understood correctly: if the OP doesn’t disclose her income the child won’t get a bursary, and if she DOES disclose it, he still won’t get a bursary, because the OP’s earnings take them over the threshold.

So what will they be discussing with the bursar, as there seems nowhere to go with this?

OR that an unrelated step-parent now needs to potentially front almost £100k.

The contract for school fees must have an ability to give notice (usually a term). So whilst they are seeking two adults to be jointly liable for the fees, if that comes with the ability for either adult to give a term's notice, then you are not on the hook for anything like that amount.

They are living together and paying a joint mortgage.
They appear committed.

If they are not, the poor child will be pushed from pillar to post- rejected by his mother and then having another change of home if this couple split up.

I'd hope that as they are living together and the OP has agreed to take his child into the home, they are planning on staying together.

If they are not working as a family unit, the man needs to move out and look after his son himself till he's 18 or older.

I have friends in their 60s with children who are not married.
They don't feel the need to marry yet are still 100% committed to each other and live as a family.

If one of them had 'inherited' a stepchild, I don't think they would quibble over who should pay for their education.

Paying private school fees is optional. The mother could be a perfectly nice person with 50/50 and have just decided that she no longer wanted to pay school fees, or have lost her job and been unable to pay. If there was no bursary, the father would have to decide if he could afford to pay all the fees or if they would give notice and the child would move to a state school.

No one can compel a parent to pay for private school fees, whether or not they are abusive.

Why do you think it's the school's job to enforce his mum paying though? If school doesn't get paid the boy's place gets terminated, it's that simple. Like any service, if you book it but don't pay for it, they don't keep providing it.

These are the terms you take on when you send a child to private school. There are extra, more onerous terms when you accept a bursary, as you are finding out.

Hopefully the meeting will be amicable, no one will piss off the bursar too much and you will find a way through this with your relationship intact.

You don’t HAVE to pick up the bill (and nor should you).
And yes, the child will suffer, as many do when they have abusive and/or absent parents.

to say: not trying to be mean or flippant, just pragmatic. Sorry!

I do think this is a nuanced situation that needs more discussion between the school and the adults involved.

It should have been the first resort to be honest, as many, MANY people on the thread advised from the very beginning.

Refusing to engage with it at all, and concluding that the school (AND your partner) want to 'steal' your money, while insisting you should have absolutely no responsibility towards a dependent who lives with you full time was really an unhelpful and quite hurtful approach to take, especially given the circumstances of how he came to live with you.

True but they take partner’s children into consideration because they assume the NRP is going to be paying something towards those children.

Because the child’s been removed from her?

But the reality of the situation is that bursaries are calculated based on household income, and whilst you live with your DP then your income forms part of that household income.

I understand why you don't want to pay, but the school won't disregard your income on that basis.

As a general premis, its not unreasonable to expect co-habiting partners to accept financial responsibility for the children resident in their household. This situation is rather different, because at the point of moving in together it couldn't have been forseen that this huge financial burden would drop on OP shoulders. But, none the less, if OP isn't prepared to financially support DSS, then she needs to no longer be part of the household in which he lives.

So unconnected but when CMS payments are worked out, if the NRP lives with someone else’s children (I.e moves in with a new partner and their children), those children are taken into account when calculating the monthly amount of CM. This means if they move in with a new partner and their three children, they will pay less for their own children. It’s batshit but the way it goes.

Guessing it’s the same thinking here. You’re going to be assessed based on overall household income because you’re cohabiting. Nothing to do with you being his bio parent or not, or married or not. Even if DP moved in with his parents, his parents income would be assessed.

I’m unsure why this thread has gone on for so long because the simple solution is for DP to move out. It’s pertinent his DS stays in this school, for his stability and mental wellbeing. I said this on the previous thread but it’s true, his DS is more important than anything else.

The school are not assuming you will "bankroll" the child. They are doing their due diligence to see whether it is still appropriate for him to still be "bankrolled" by a charity.

I am totally on your side OP. You have no obligations to this substantial financial commitment. The boy has two parents, and likely several grandparents plus aunts, uncles etc. who all have a stronger family connection to him.

I hope the school sees sense, and I can only assume that the people who are tying themselves in knots on this thread trying to prove you are morally/legally liable are really, properly bored.

Unfortunately what people think should happen is irrelevant.

The facts are that the school WILL include OPs income in the financial assessment, or remove the bursary if she refuses to provide her income whilst they continue to be in a relationship and live together.

Given the particularly difficult circumstances in this case, the father needs to prioritise his child and keep him in this school.

Therefore OP either complies with the schools requirements and pays towards the school fees either directly or indirectly or her relationship is over, they need to sell up their existing property and sever all financial ties, allowng her DP to legitimately apply for financial support based on his sole income.

So OP needs to be clear which she values more, money or her relationship.

It's not fair and a shit situation all round. However, this is the situation the OP finds herself in, and the decision she needs to make.

If OP and her partner have bought a house together, it's a pretty long term commitment.

I don't see the point of you arguing what they are to each other with everyone, it is the school's criteria that is the issue here, and like anything where a subsidy is being provided due to low income, the household is taken into account to stop people abusing the system.

The household in this instance includes OP and her partner.

A joint mortgage is a long term commitment…

Married or not married is binary, yes - but as has been said repeatedly on this thread, for some purposes such as benefits and university fees, a household of this kind is treated as an entity, from a legal standpoint.