How long should we contribute to adult child?

[cantthinkofauniquename]

Said child is 23. Back story is that for a number of reasons, we did not contribute financially for the first 2 years of university. We did for the last year. In a couple of months, we will have been paying an amount monthly for 2 years. Trying to decide when is the right time to stop. Child had a job before graduation. They're doing well and we're proud of them.

We can afford to keep paying but it is a stretch. It would make a large difference to our own household budget if we stopped. We have 2 younger children.

YANBU - Keep paying for another year as she should have had 3 years support.

YABU - Paying for a year after a degree is enough.

It depends a lot on why she qasnt supported when she went to uni, and if tbat was related to being a step child.

If you are treating your children differently, or the reason for lack of support was due to the step- situation I would pay the missing year (but probably as a lump sum with an apology for the situation.)

My dad stopped supporting me after a year (whilst reasonably well off) as he just didn't want to and it still rankles! I think you'll find it will fuel sibling issues too.

Is it his child and you resented him paying appropriately for his child?

I think it's odd people saying it has to be exactly equal between siblings. My parents have always taken the view that it was what each of us needed, rather than a financially equal split - so while I went to uni and my sister didn't, when I needed some help in my third year as my full-time job plus degree was unsustainable, they helped out with my last term's rent (no monthly allowance or other help at uni for me - I would have been over the moon haha!), when my sister moved house after a breakup both parents helped her towards a rental deposit and new furniture. There've been tons of these examples, with my sister coming out 'on top' by several orders of magnitude, so these amounts weren't equal but they were what we needed at the time. Currently my sibling is getting quite a bit of financial support for various reasons, again. I will never see the same amount of money from either parent and neither could have afforded it when I was in a similar situation she was 5 years ago - but I don't need it now, and she does, and now my parents can afford it. I wouldn't begrudge her that and circumstances change - I'm just glad that they can help her out.

DSD -

1. Had two sets of parents (or at least 3 people, if her mum is single) helping her through uni
2. Has a job
3. Owns a house at 22????!

She is very clearly not doing badly for herself, and isn't in desperate need of support. If any of your other kids didn't go to uni because they'd got themselves a job and were earning, I wouldn't expect them to be getting a monthly allowance - they wouldn't need it. On the flip side, if one was at uni and the other wasn't (and was earning) I'd think it pretty selfish of them to complain they weren't also getting money as though balancing the pennies out was more important than all siblings getting help when they need it and not just rinsing the parents for money in the name of fairness.

(Full disclosure: I think my view on this is coloured because growing up skint you don't expect anything from your parents and feel a bit guilty for anything you do get. But I think my point still stands - help to the child(ren) that need it at any given time that you can afford to comfortably give. A person who can afford to buy a house at 22 does not need financial support.)

I fully see an adult child may well not "need" the money but that isnt really the issue is it? If you are essentially gifting your other children money you really ought to gift all children money.

I'd stop paying whilst it's lovely to help at 22 there adults
Uni is an investment once they are established in a career the average graduate earn 10k a year more .
So if you pay 27k for a degree over 30 years they normally earn 100k more than if they didn't have the degree .
So you put 27k in at the front and get 100k out overall .
They choose to go they finance it.

Do I have this straight? You didn't pay for her first two years, for reasons. You paid for her third (final) year, then an additional year because you felt bad about not paying for the first two. Now you want to stop paying because you need the money to pay for the first year of your next child?

Whatever you do, you need to treat them the same. If you want to pay for three years for your younger children, you need to pay for three years for the oldest. If you want to stop paying for the oldest now, then you need to only pay for two years for the younger ones, too. That's the only way to make it fair.

@ILikeTheWineNotTheLabel

I think the DSD information should have been in your original post. Massively changes the dynamic.

You let her down when she needed you. Now you want to weasel out of making it right.

Disgusting.

I wouldn’t expect much in the way of help from her in your old age if you continue like this.

But then I guess you are thinking that you’ve got two kids of your own to fall back on, and any distance that ensues with your DSD will be further excuse to push her further and further out of your lives. Those are the type of “circumstances” that just arise from time to time that warrant concentrating on other things, just like the “circumstances” basil hat arose during her first t o years of study.

After all, she’s doing so well for herself that she doesn’t need your help and your children do.

Reprehensible. Manipulative and dishonest behaviour.

How utterly ridiculous.

It’s really not ideal that you didn’t contribute towards their first years at uni, they didn’t cease to exist because you had other issues. But I don’t see the point giving them money for living expenses now they have graduated and have a professional job, seems odd. Why wouldn’t you take the money you didn’t bother with for the first few years and pay off the corresponding amount of student debt instead, that would be beneficial and related to uni expense at least.

Be equal and fair between all the children. If you give her only 2 years then only give the other children for 2 years too. Otherwise if you plan on supporting them for 3 years then continue to support her for the third year. Otherwise you will give her a very hurtful message about her worth and importance.

Is this a joke?
A grown ass women with a job and her own house? Why would u be paying?

I find this 100% fair and equal thing a bit bonkers personally.

I’m an eldest child of four. I got less monetarily and in terms of opportunities for things like extra curriculars etc owing to the fact my parents had less money when I was at certain ages because they were at earlier stages of their own careers. Surely it’s natural for parents to become more well off as their children grow up. The younger ones will always benefit more from changes in financial situation. Someone has to be born first!

They were unable to support me or sibling two financially through uni, but they could for siblings three and four because their mortgage was gone by then. I think it’s quite unreasonable to expect parents to provide things they are unable to at the time due to circumstances because ‘it’s got to be equal’. That’s not how the world works!

Did the mother contribute the same amount as you did each month? Just interesting, as that means DSD will essentially have had the equivalent of 5 years of funding while your DC will only get 3, given that it’ll only be you supporting them through Uni. Not saying that’s right or wrong, just an additional thing to consider.

I got less support than my younger sister, as my parents had less money at the time. I am grateful for everything they gave me at their own expense. Both my sister and I appreciate the value of money because it was never handed out freely, only when desperate times hit.

Perhaps you can stop the money for your DSD now she has her own good job and mortgage, and fund your other two children. Maybe once they graduate and you are financially better off, you could put the equivalent of the years money in to paying off her student loans. She doesn’t need the money now, but it means eventually she will get the same as your other DC from you if you are set on absolutely giving the same amount to all.

In my mind, DSC being treated the same as your DC is her getting e.g. £200 a month from her parents (100 from each) and your DC getting 200 from you. But maybe I’m looking at it all wrong.

There's no set answer to this. It depends on your own financial situation, what you can afford and what your child/ children need. Don't be stingy for the sake of it if your child needs money, but don't keep paying if they are self sufficient and fine.

I'm not sure.
I'm the eldest and my DM had me very young. We really didn't have much growing up as she couldn't afford it, also if I'm completely honest, what we did have went on the adults in the house. Eventually my DM married someone else and had more children, they've had a lot more growing up meaning better clothes, treats, extra curricular activities, days out, holiday, etc. Because of the big age gap by this point I was too old to get any of the above.
It definitely has left me quite resentful of the situation. But I know DM plainly didn't have the money when I needed and wanted things, you do have it, so I think I would pay it if its affordable.

@ILikeTheWineNotTheLabel

I think the DSD information should have been in your original post. Massively changes the dynamic.

You let her down when she needed you. Now you want to weasel out of making it right.

Disgusting.

I wouldn’t expect much in the way of help from her in your old age if you continue like this.

But then I guess you are thinking that you’ve got two kids of your own to fall back on, and any distance that ensues with your DSD will be further excuse to push her further and further out of your lives. Those are the type of “circumstances” that just arise from time to time that warrant concentrating on other things, just like the “circumstances” basil hat arose during her first t o years of study.

After all, she’s doing so well for herself that she doesn’t need your help and your children do.

Reprehensible. Manipulative and dishonest behaviour.

This is among the most ridiculous posts I’ve ever read on here, and that’s saying something. Some people seem to fly off the handle frothing at the mere mention of a poster being a step parent.

As others have said, DSD has a mother, who has also been contributing to her university education. Therefore, given both those sets of contributions, she has benefitted more than the OP’s children will.

I’d have been embarrassed to take money from my parents when I had a job and a house.

You really don't need to treat people exactly the same if it disadvantages you, they're adults etc.

My parents paid zero of My fees for uni. I got full loans and full maintenance grant and worked.

If you didn't pay the fees for the first year because you couldn't be arsed yet she was disadvantaged by this, as in they took your wages into consideration and she was only given minimum support and had to work, (when I went your parents wages were taken into account and so if they were good earners you weren't entitled to the maintenance grant) so in that case I might be more inclined to say here is a chunk of money to pay back the student loan you needed to use.
But seriously just paying a grown woman an allowance every month or quarter or whatever the hell you're doing is pretty odd. In my opinion.

Maybe I'd have paid off done of her student fees but not an allowance. That's nuts.

I think perhaps you should have thought about how you'd support the kids through uni.
So you agree you'd pay their fees or you agree you'd pay 1k a term living expenses.
I don't know what you agreed.
Is the mother continuing to give an allowance?

I think because I got zero help I find this just kind of weird.

What if one child decided to do medicine or 5 year degree? Are you then gonna pay the others 2 extra years? Or if one doesn't do uni, they get a 5year allowance?
It's just weird.

I will be helping my children if they need uni help but I certainly won't be putting a spreadsheet together to give them all the same as the most expensive child to educate. They choose a path, I'll support while they study but life happens and I'm not paying a full adult an allowance.

Are you going to pay for 3 years for the next child to go to university? If you are planning on supporting your other children for 3 years I would suggest you do it for all. Anything else will cause resentment.... if you plan on only supporting your other children for 2 years then it is perfectly acceptable to explain this to DSD and bring support to an end

I’d have stopped paying as soon as they got a job and could afford to be self sufficient. You don’t owe them 2 years payments... they’re an adult now so unless they struggle big time then let them take responsibility.

Would you be paying the same amount for DC2 as DC1? If DC1 is getting the full amount from you and the same from her DM then she's had the entire 4 years between her two parents.

If I was 23 with a house and a job then I'd be so embarrassed to will be getting an allowance from my parents.

Tricky one, OP. I get the 3 year thing. If you're planning to do that for the next two children, then it is 'fair' to do it for 3 years for the first one. Regardless of the circumstances, in the interest of fairness in treating DC equally, I would just carry on for a year and make it clear that it will be stopping at that point. I know she is technically an adult in a job now but I think what you do for one child you should do for all.

So there's an expectation that parents support kids through uni, that is very evident from the maintenance loan system.

To keep it really simple did DSD qualify for the highest maintenance loan? If not was the level topped up by either your DH or her mum?

If her mum topped up the grant then DSD had the money anyway so who it came from is irrelevant. If she now has the maximum as a loan because of no parental support it's probably fair to ensure she has the same amount your DC will get but maybe not necessarily now if the money will make a bigger difference to your family now.

If Mum topped up to the level of full maintenance grant and you are also topping up in the end she will end up with more of a contribution than the DC will as they will just have a top up from you & DH.

I don't think retrospectively balancing the scales now when she doesn't need it and the other 2 DC have thus far had anything is a good use of family funds. I would try and have a calm conversation with DSD saying you are going to pause the assistance for now but will aim to balance the scales further down the line. I believe strongly in treating children fairly but they don't necessarily need the help at the same time and parents are often not in a position to help equal things every time one DC needs help.

I'm taking you out of the sentence here only cos I think it makes the picture clearer. Do her dad's payments and her mum's add up to the 3 years-worth her dad will be giving his other 2? If they do, then you can stop without feeling guilty as all 3 will have then had the same amount of support. If the answer's no then you do need to continue I'm afraid.

She’s 23, has a job and in her own home. Unless she is relying on your income to survive, then you don’t need to pay. My son moved out at 18, got a job. We oaid his rent for the first four months, and then he paid his own way (and still does, age 21).

Stop paying! Lots of parents don’t pay for uni and the children understand. She sounds a bit spoilt. Don’t pay anymore!

Also I bet she hasn’t told her workmates that her parents are struggling each much so she can have a top up. She would be embarrassed too as it is not normal. Fair doesn’t always have to be exactly the same.