To not pay stepchild’s private school fees.

[CloverRiver]

My stepchild is 13 and has 3 years left of secondary school. They’ve been in a nice private school for the past 2 years, funded by my DP and his ex-wife. They benefited from a reduction and discount in fees.

My stepchild recently came to live with us full time, this is ordered by the court and social services and it has been traumatic for him. I’ll avoid details because I don’t want to out myself and to protect their privacy.

My issue: My stepchild’s school has now said that, as my stepchild is living with us full time, they want to assess my income and I need to be a co-signature to his school fees. I do not want to be liable for school fees, potentially thousands a year. If I sign this contract I will be made joint and severely liable, if for whatever reason DP didn’t pay or we split up I’d still be liable for it. I also do not want my accounts being analysed in depth, audited etc. DP and I are not married but we do live together and have done for a number of years.

I have told DP that it’s a firm no but he is now really cross and adamant this will potentially mean his child loses his place at school. The school has sent two emails now saying they want my income details and that they expect me to sign the contract. Before people suggest pulling him out and putting him in state, he has moderate autism, so he really does need and benefit from the school.

It's a horrible situation and you have my sympathies.

I think you know you have 2 choices here: either suck it up and pay for the school fees or split from your partner. Or at least, live separately from your partner for now.

This is just not true. It is living together that counts. Not marriage. It doesnt matter if you think there should be a difference, there isnt and there mainly isn't to stop single mothers from living with men who earn money and receiving full benefits at the same time.

It seems odd if you have been living together for years that they suddenly are interested in your income.

Why hasn’t it been an issue up to now?

I’d ask to see their charter or rule book or whatever, and review their objective guidelines for bursaries. How can they just decide out of the blue to glom on to an unrelated, unmarried person’s income?

This isn't how it works! They live together, they are a financial unit

What if you couldn’t afford the reduced fees whilst living alone either?

I'd say the thing tying her to the relationship is the same thing that ties people to their marriage. Or at least should. The desire for a shared future and love and stuff. Maybe I am new fashioned.

I wonder how many people insisting that they aren't a family or she's not liable for anything would agree that a parent should still be able to claim benefits if they move in with a high earning partner? In those circumstances I expect 98% of people on one side would swiftly change their position...

There are lots of situations where being married makes a legal difference, but I'm not sure how people have concluded this must be one of them. OP isn't legally responsible for DSS regardless of whether they marry. And we don't know what the terms of any bursaries are, what rules the administrators might be bound by.

Really it would be wise for OP and DP to get as much information as possible.

Don’t let anyone make you feel bad OP. Honestly, I completely understand! You can be a good step mother and a partner without having to compromise yourself to pay such high fees. This isn’t £100 loan. Sometimes in life you have to take decisions and do what works best for you, and I think what you are saying is very reasonable. Of course it won’t make everyone happy, but that’s life.

I also think that if this was a man who had a female partner with a child, he would be expected to give up his income and assume liability.

Huh? Not quite sure what you mean about this? I dont think some random guy should be paying for a single mums children because he moved in. But I do think he should contribute his share for groceries/rent etc and not living off the benefits as well. If he marries the single mum that changes and he should be helping to support - not finance her and the kids that are not his completely unless he can and wants to. The mum and father of the kids should be the ones financing the kids.

It seems pretty simple (though not necessarily palatable) to me OP.

You can refuse to have your finances assessed and the child loses his bursary. Your DP can then either accept that and move the child to a different school, or move out (or ask you to, depending on who owns the property) so the child can retain the bursary.

That’s it, there’s no other options if your DP can’t afford full fees on his own.

Not a great choice, but I think your relationship is more likely to survive if you focus more on what’s best for the child (even if he’s not your legal responsibility etc) and less on whether to comply with the school’s request. They hold the cards unfortunately.

FWIW I would make plans to live separately until the child’s education is complete. It sounds like losing the school place could be very difficult, and he needs stability for all the reasons you’ve mentioned - autism, age and also the loss of contact with his mum.

I think this is perfectly reasonable stance to take.

Why is the mother not paying her share any more? Just because he’s not living with her, it doesn’t mean excuse her from responsibility surely?

I think you've shown exactly where you stand vis-a-vis his child. I, personally, wouldn't have got together with a man who has a child, a child who I clearly have no maternal instinct towards. If you stand firm on this, i suspect your partner would reconsider this relationship (and rightly so), and even if this may not be the straw that breaks the camels back, this would definitely make any future decision for him to break up with you much easier. I think it's best if this happens now, and hopefully the school will reassess the placement based on his income only and the child will be offered a further bursary for him to complete the next 3 years. I hope this is a wake up call for both you, and your partner does what is right by his son.

Presumably child benefits from a bursary and that’s why in depth financials required.

There are lots of situations where being married makes a legal difference, but I'm not sure how people have concluded this must be one of them. OP isn't legally responsible for DSS regardless of whether they marry

Actually that's very true, @NikkiPotnick, but at least in a settled, long term relationship certain expeectations become more acceptable

As PPs have noticed, this one appears to be maybe a couple of years old, which is roughly the time when what a partner's really about becomes clear - and this one definitely wouldn't be for me

Okay well at this time, if a single mum moves her boyfriend in, then his income is counted as household income and her benefit entitlement is adjusted accordingly. That's because they assume the man will make up this shortfall as he has opted to become part of the family as a head adult. It doesn't matter how long they've been together and marriage isn't necessary for this to count.

They could take all her benefits away, apart from CB (20 a week or whatever) and everything for the child (food, clothes, uniform, fun) is expected to come from the household income. If he earns a lot more than she does, then that means it all is expected to come from him.

I'd still leave. Because it wouldn't feel like a partnership anymore

So you’re not married and you have no legal responsibilities to this child. You state his father cannot afford the school fees alone so I’m assuming the child’s mother is not paying anything towards the school fees?
So what are you actually asking OP?
If you give financial details you are basically agreeing to being held responsible which you don’t want to do. So either way your partner can’t pay so the child has to leave the school!

Doesn't make a lot of sense that people are trying to tie this to other situations where cohabitants are treated in the same way as spouses.

We live in a society where being married sometimes makes a difference and sometimes doesn't. Their cohabitation would be relevant if they tried to claim income based benefits, but it won't be if one of them wants to inherit the other's unused nil rate tax band for IHT purposes. Nobody's going to get very far trying to apply overarching principles here, because that's not how our systems work.

Are you willing or able to contribute until the end of the school year? So that removing him can be softened?
Have you arranged a meeting with the School so that you can negotiate the DC's education.

The mother refuses to contribute as social services and the court have deemed her abusive (which she vehemently denies). She has significant mental health issues.

Is a girlfriend of a parent considered a step parent? That's important to find out. As somebody else said, stop referring to him as a stepson, that implies to them that you're a step parent, you aren't married. I'd say 'boyfriend's son' in any interactions with the school.

Benefits are not the same as a private school education.

Well this is what it comes down to really. It may be that the relationship doesn't get past this whatever happens, because one partner has an expectation the other isn't happy about being expected to meet.