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.

There's just a nagging issue in the back of our minds, a degree is 3 years so we should pay for 3 years.

But she doesn't need it now. She has a job & is buying her first house. If you are worried, why not try to set aside a small sum monthly that can accumulate so if she ever needs a bit of a cash boost, you can give her a thousand or so.

You don't say enough about the DSD situation eg what support she gets from her mother & mother's family etc etc.

But on the face of it, your husband and her mother have done their job in launching your DSD into the adult world.

I think as a parent it’s not always about being “fair”.

To be blunt OP! You have 2 other kids. Your DSD owns a home, has a job and your asking if you should pay...... can we get in the real world Im sorry but there is a lot of privilege people on MN!!!

It’s utter madness in my world.

But the step daughter also has a mum who helps financially so, it isnt a fair level overall, the step daughter would get more as the other 2 children will only get same amount from dad and their mum

Well, if we are counting other income then what about inheritances? if the OP's kids inherit from their bio grandparents then they should also get less surely? what if they get better paid jobs during college- should they then get less because they are earning more than their DSD?
I am referring to fairness in how you treat someone. Overall life fairness is something none of us have control over- life doesnt treat us all fairly unfortunately but we CAN control the fairness of how we treat people.

Also, I dont agree that if you treat people fairly it means money= love.
Thats utter BS. If any parent left all of their money to one sibling and none at all to the other they would absolutely assume that meant they werent loved as much. I would challenge anyone not to feel that if they were in that scenario.

@merryhouse

How much of the loan did she get?

When your circumstances changed did you go to Student Finance and ask them to recalculate the loan amount?

@TableFlowerss when the loans system first came in the PR was all over the idea that it would have nothing to do with parental income, but that lasted less than five years. It's amazing the number of high earners who spend eighteen years bringing up children without actually discovering this.

Why on earth are people talking about contributing towards tuition fees?

Exactly- the tuition fee loan is the one part of it that is paid for by the government, regardless if parental income. Even Martin Lewis the money guy says that’s the debt that doesn’t need to be paid ASAP....

@C8H10N4O2

But if my circumstances had changed massively for the better in between children then I would want to share that with both my DC because I love them!

That's an awful sentiment. You teach them that love=money this way.

Mine are all adults, they were all fairly close together. We have always helped them according to their needs and our means at the time. Just the way my parents did for all of us. They don't equate cash with love.

DH's parents had a mild tendency to the bean counting method of support and his sibling still has issues with this today.

When you give one child something they actually need and the others something they don't soley "to make it fair" you teach them that cash sharing equates to love sharing.

Over the years some DC need more cash, others more time, others may need different support. It all balances out overall and generally all are happiest if one form of support isn't seen as their "share" of your love for them.

But that's exactly what I'm saying. If your circumstances change, you can help your DC in different ways. A younger one might 'need' a trampoline. An older one might 'need' a car. They cost different amounts. It's not about dollar amounts, because how could you ever quantify that?

Some people think that once a person turns 18, that's it, they're an adult and they should fend for themselves. My parents and In laws didn't have that view, thankfully, as they have been able to help all of us in different ways. The dollar amounts will be different and sometimes it was about housing or other things rather than money. But where there were similar needs they have always tried to be fair. They wouldn't have paid for my younger sibling to attend uni and emerge debt free and then let me pay off loans for the rest of my life, for example.

And it's not all about money. In our family, at various times, various members (senior or junior!) might need time, a listening ear, emotional support, babysitting, help in the garden, help with their computer, or financial help. It isn't about money specifically, it's about quality of life. Helping each other out according to need and ability. It's about finding joy in sharing experiences together. Sometimes my mum takes me away for a holiday. Sometimes I take her out to the theatre. These things cost money, but purchasing them for each other is not about money.

Also, I dont agree that if you treat people fairly it means money= love

That isn't what I said. If you give child B money they don't need just because child A does have a need then you as the parent are teaching that equal money = equal love.

Thats utter BS. If any parent left all of their money to one sibling and none at all to the other they would absolutely assume that meant they werent loved as much. I would challenge anyone not to feel that if they were in that scenario

Its a situation that has arisen within my family and others that I know without difficulty. Everyone knew what to expect and that some financial needs were greater than others. And that helping the child in difficulties with cash doesn't mean you love them more than those who are already well set financially.

In fact the only time I've seen it cause problems (other than MN) is where children have grown up associating share of cash with share of love.

If any parent left all of their money to one sibling and none at all to the other they would absolutely assume that meant they werent loved as much. I would challenge anyone not to feel that if they were in that scenario

I am in that situation. I understand the reasons for it. I don't feel less loved.

"They are in a good, secure job related to the degree and have just purchased their first home."
Wtf are you still contributing for!

Since the adult child in question is managing well on her own, you should not continue to pay her.

But you may have a chance to 'equal up' at another stage in her life - e.g. wedding? Children?

They've just purchased their first home. Op well done, your work is complete. You don't need to keep subbing them.

You really need to stop paying. Set a cut off for the end of the academic year, so mid July, and say you are giving two years of support to each child and she has had hers. If you are able to give more to your other children for the third year then great and nobody needs to know. Things don't have to be exactly equal with all kids. I have paid for independent school for two of mine and not others. I'm sure one will need financial help down the line, one will need more babysitting help. It's swings and roundabouts. But you really can't continue to pay a monthly amount to an adult with a job and a house if you aren't well off yourself.

@therocinante

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 find it really odd too. When my mum sold her house i was 19 and my brother was 26, I needed and couldn’t afford a car and he wanted to buy a property. So she gave me £3k and him £10k. That was considering our stage of life and needs at that time, she couldn’t have afforded more and we were both very grateful, we’d never expected money from parents for anything anyway so we were so thankful.

OP, she’s already had a lot more than most kids and it’s plenty time to cut the apron strings. And you can decide what help to give the others depending on your situation at that time. It’d be madness to push yourself into ruin to give them the exact same, or avoid helping them more if you could based on some sense of fairness.

@JamesMiddletonsMarshmallows

I was saying what I would do. I wouldn't make my younger child go without anything that they needed, but equally if I was able to afford fancy holidays etc then I would invite both my DC to come.

Inviting an adult child on a family holiday is vastly different to giving them a lump sum because they didn't get a trampoline when they were 7.

Holidays cost money, so whether the money is used to pay for a holiday or a car, or to pay off student debt, I don't think it makes a difference. It's not about compensating for not having a trampoline or whatever in the past. It would be about improving her quality of life with whatever she needs now, in the present, if it was within my means.

@UntamedWisteria

Since the adult child in question is managing well on her own, you should not continue to pay her.

But you may have a chance to 'equal up' at another stage in her life - e.g. wedding? Children?

This is bad OP or her father should not have to “equal” DD to anything.

OPs children and the youngest may not get on the property ladder... is it then the parents responsibility to “equal” them to DSD. It’s ridiculous.

Being able to buy a home a year after graduation is HUGE and very, very unusual. I’ll ask again- where did the deposit come from? This is a huge elephant in the room when discussing the financial needs of the DSD.

Holidays cost money, so whether the money is used to pay for a holiday or a car, or to pay off student debt, I don't think it makes a difference.

Of course it does - a family holiday is a family experience. A car or to pay off student debt isn't

It would be about improving her quality of life with whatever she needs now, in the present, if it was within my means

Can you really not see the pitfalls of constantly buying things for your children well into adulthood just because you want them to have nice things?

10:45JamesMiddletonsMarshmallows

It would be about improving her quality of life with whatever she needs now, in the present, if it was within my means.

What a out the OPs quality of life? And her children?

@JamesMiddletonsMarshmallows

And if it makes a difference, my sister invites her 23yo on holidays with her husband (so 23yo's stepdad), her 18yo sister and 7yo brother. We usually have big family holidays when we're allowed to. I have no idea who pays for 23yo because I'd never even think to ask.

In which case your sibling may well be paying for all the DC, which was exactly the kind of thing I was suggesting.

@Icenii you don't have a right to a quality of life once you have kids you know, in fact if you're anything less than miserable (especially as a step parent) you've failed them exponentially 😂

STOP

@Tootsee

So, going by some of the replies on here, dsd deserves double the money the OP’s own dcs will get!

Dsd has 2 sets of parents contributing separately to her, while when the OP’s own children need help they will only get the 2 parents contributing the one amount (unless op and her dh split up meantime)!

I would stop contributing now op, dh’s ex isn’t going to help fund your children is she?

Definitely this

They are in a good, secure job related to the degree and have just purchased their first home.

I’m sorry, I know we’re 9 pages on from this, but really for me this is all the info I’d need to stop contributing. (Though I’m also interested in how she got the deposit for her home.) She doesn’t need further support. Other DC might. It’s not about fairness down to the last penny, it’s about the overall need of all family members.

I don't understand this at all. Who was the resident parent for your DSD growing up? Her living expenses loan will have been determined based on that household's income. If your DH is the non-resident parent then his income will not have been used to calculate her loan amount.

So, either DSD lived with her Mum and her Mum's household income is sufficient to support her whether or not your DH paids any money to your DSD.

Or, DSD lived with you and your income was used to calculate her loan amount. If your income changed while she was at Uni then it might have affected one year but the next year the loan amount would be recalculated to take into account your change in circumstances.

It sounds like both DSDs parents were planning to contribute so why didn't DH's ex increase her contribution after your change in circumstances?

What? An adult who has a job and owns their own home shouldn't be getting pocket money off their parents.