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

But they aren’t married, so why are you lecturing her as though they are?
It’s binary: married or not. Two different states, from a legal and familial standpoint.

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.

My take on this has changed since you said you have adult children of your own. They are through their education (unless you're funding uni fees.)

If you're living together and have a joint mortgage, you are in effect in the same position financially as being married (I suspect you're the higher earner.)

I assumed from your earlier posts that you were childless and part of your reluctance to pay these fees was you may have children with this man in the future. And that you wanted to ring-fence your income for those extra outgoings.

Your argument of 'we could split up and I'd lose that money'- would you say the same if you were married and a step parent?

One option would be a loan, a legal contract that your partner would repay.

The same surely as the arrangement over the finances if you split up now - you're both paying the mortgage, but aren't married, so presumably you have a Deed of Trust ? That way you each get back the percentage you have paid for the house.

My advice is you think very seriously over what you want from a relationship where there are existing children- yours and his.

At what point do you wash your hands of expenses for children who are not yours? This is fundamental to any blended family.

You're either in it as a couple (IMO) or you decide to have red lines between what you each contribute not just now, but years ahead.

Exactly. OP states that she, as someone in a long term relationship with the child's father, shouldn't have to pay - piece of paper or no pieceof paper, she is to all intents and purposes a step parent. But someone has to pay for him to stay there, and she feels other parents who have no connection with him at all, should be the ones to do this.
When the parents placed him there, they knew that at any point one of them may lose their job, the bursary rules could change, and they still chose to go ahead.
My brother went to school on a bursary, and for those 7 years as a family we had no holidays and very few extras, any spare money after bills paid went into a savings account as an insurance for the bursary being removed at any point and them needing to cover the fees. And at the end they made choice to pay that money into the schools bursary pot to help someone else like he had been helped

I think this is very difficult @CloverRiver

I suspect that the school with compromise because if his son leaves, they will lose money. Many private schools are closing because of the VAT impact.

However on the other hand, if you really are a blended family (you say you have adult children living at home) and you have a joint mortgage, surely you are in effect the same as a married couple and therefore, do you not want the best for your partner's son?

I can see you're wealthy- probably on 6 figure income as you mention the tax you pay - so why don't you want to help your partner with his son? His mum has disowned him , he has learning difficulties, he's had counselling- and he's just 13.

If you were married and this happened, what would you feel then?
Would you still refuse to pay?

I still say it's his father who needs to speak to the school rather than you asking on a forum, but part of me thinks you're lacking in compassion.

You also talk about 'if you split up'. [and you'd lose the money you'd paid out].

If you feel that's an issue maybe you shouldn't be with this man anyway?

Just throwing that out there as a question.

@CloverRiver

i had a quick look at my dc’s bursary forms as I knew they were on my phone (few years ago), they assessed both parents whether together or not and if those parents lived with other people whether married or “as if they were married” they reserved the right to assess them too. I know people did state their child had no contact with the other parent and nobody actually checked but most were honest

So you have adult children at home?

I'm late to the 2nd part of your thread but I did ask many times if you had children or planned to have them with your partner.

It was relevant.

Presumably It will have been because both the parents at that time were involved , so they took the two parents' income into Account as they usually would. They may not have known about the configuration of the family beyond that.

You and your partner want his child to continue staying at a fee paying school. Currently someone else - via the bursary - is paying for this. Usually a top up on other parents fees/ donations from fundraising events etc. either way, other people are paying for this child. Which is fine as his family set up can’t afford it. However now you’re on the scene they CAN afford it. They need that money for another child. If you want this child to receive special education unfortunately you need to be paying the price.

On what basis is it “obviously different”??

He’s 13 and has 3 years to go. She’s calculated annual fees times 3 and then divided it by 2 for her share (but as I mentioned before joint and several liability means she’s on the hook for the full cost not 50%).

You can feel that the school’s approach is nonsense, however my observation was simply that the school are looking out for their best interests hence why they made these decisions. You don’t have to agree whether it was right to do it or not - that wasn’t my point. I was simply saying that this is clearly the school’s way of mitigating risk regardless.

Beyond that, cohabiting couples are always handled differently than say, random unconnected adults in a HMO. The income of a couple is always considered as joint household income, it’s obviously a different relationship than a bunch of strangers in a house share.

If he can afford £1k a month school fees he's not going to be getting UC.

Because she doesn't contribute to the child. The father is her bf so their money, presumably, isn't pulled/in a kitty. I assume he pays her rent.

I'm not saying he should get a bursary but the situation is unfair on OP.

The fact he can't manage his finances isn't your problem.

Very harsh, it's not his fault the courts have enforced his child must live with him full time, and the mother now wants nothing more to do with him, it's a very unfortunate situation for everyone involved.

Not many people would be able to just stump up another £1800 every month, but the sting is that £1200 of that is SOLELY because OP earns too much for them to still receive financial help with the fees..

It's not really a case of him not managing his finances at all.

How did the school get your email/details?

I fail to see why your income is relevant for child you aren't related to.

I wouldn't put your family finances at risk for this child. While you wish him well, he's not your responsibility. He is your boyfriend's child.

The fact he can't manage his finances isn't your problem.

Out of interest, seeing as universities base calculations for maintenance loans based on the household income of whoever the student is living with....

I take it everyone feels the same about that?
"If you’re under 25 and financially depend on at least one parent
Your household income includes:

• your parents’ income, if you live with them or depend on them financially
• the combined income of one of your parents and their partner, if you live with them or depend on them financially

So I'm confused.

The school is £43,000, which puts it at the absolute very highest end for day schools, so it's surprising that one which can't fill year 7 is able to get away with that.

Your partner and ex were both previously paying £600/month (£7200 each per year each). She stopped and he's now paying £1200/month (£14,400 per year). If the bursary is 50%, as you've stated, that puts fees at £28,800 per year, not £43,000.

Presumably because the existing contract is between the Childs two parents (it's never been OP or the mums husband on the contract), so no other person would be liable to pay the current fees other than the two people named in the contract.

The mum has refused to pay, so the DP is paying her share for the time being to keep the child in school, the school aren't 'going after' anyone as they are being paid.

The problem now is the change in circumstances as the child now lives with them full time, and the school need to re-assess to see if they meet the household income criteria for the bursary (they won't, but OP is refusing to submit her earnings anyway), and they are also asking her to now be the other person on the contract accepting liability to pay, it would make sense for it to be OP, but they can't make her sign it and she shouldn't have to, the responsibility to pay should fall solely to the child's parent, but it's unclear what the schools contract actually says.

They can't go after random people in other houses where the child doesn't live for payment, his mother is also off the hook as he no longer lives there or has any contact with her.

This 2nd thread highlights how some of us walk headlong into financially disastrous relationships.

As interesting as a topic maybe, financial arrangements are not based on what they should/shouldn't be / what they should and shouldn't assume. There are terms and you choose how to operate within them, because there's always a choice.

That’s actually quite a pertinent piece of information.

A heavily reduced year 7 intake is very concerning.

It could be that the entire assessment criteria has change as the school needs to reduce bursaries in order to stay afloat.

It could also be that after looking at last year’s financial assessment for step-child and the mum declining to contribute any more, they have serious concerns about your DP’s ability to pay even the reduced fees alone.

I do think you need to play your card and refuse to get involved on the basis of having no financial responsibility to your DP and his child and call their bluff.

They won’t remove the bursary or child overnight. They have a duty of care. The result will probably just be further negotiations until a solution that everyone is happy with is found.

I’ve scanned through your comments and the other thread and frankly I think the only realistic solution is that he can’t attend any longer?

Your DP can’t afford it, end of. All this back and forth seems pointless when ultimately the funds just don’t exist.

That seems a pretty shit way to handle it when he could have an amicable face to face with the head and the bursar to discuss his son's circumstances.

If this thread is a true representation (i.e. they didn't just discover funds your DP has been hiding), which I have some doubts about, and this school has in fact made a sudden mid-year withdrawal of a bursary from a child in traumatic situation, they're extremely unprofessional and seem to have not understood their duty of care to their pupil and I wouldn't want my child there anyway.

I mentioned the ex wife’s dh in your first thread

why arent going after him considering he was married to the mum and she had refused to pay

his long were they together /married

or is he split from her now (maybe he was paying the fees) from the family pot and due to her mh now not with her ?

if they are together again. Why isn’t he liable ?

same for you and dp - how long together ?

have you been in the sons life for years

Yes - and what if, hypothetically ,the OP’s Mum moves in, would she also get tangled up in this nonsense?