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.

Do people do that? It sounds like fraud.

Unfortunately the school can assign bursaries however they wish. The criteria is there’s to set. The government also uses ‘household’ income when assessing the level of loan given for uni. However, it doesn’t sound like anyone has actually had a conversation with the school head/bursar. I’d at least go in and explain that you don’t have and never will have PR and that moving this already traumatised child is not in his best interest. But you’re essentially begging here. They can flatly tell you they aren’t assessing on those with PR but rather on household income. It’s worth asking. If they are using household then your DP has a choice. He either needs to move out or move his son’s school. The outrageous is that he expects you to pay fees!

He doesn't need to move out, but she needs to be formally charging a rent and declaring same, thus breaking the "household" situation.

How can you force that? As the parent?

And I agree this is why you have to think carefully before moving in with someone. I think the OP should have considered this, too.

However, I think it is dangerous to encourage that level of dependency with no middle ground. I think it is safer to live with someone and maintain financial independence as a step along the road to full commitment/marriage/whatever. That way, if living together isnt a good idea, both parties have the freedom to leave/exist independently. Maybe if they had something like a three year time limit where you can claim benefits as if single but live with a partner.

Not if the money is actually changing hands and being declared, then its not fraud in any way shape or form

You aren't giving the full story. There's a bit of drip feed here.

Unless I've misunderstood your latest post, you say his ex wife has a 'new' husband.

So why is she unable to pay the fees like she was? Has she chosen not to simply because the son is not living with them?

The school was happy with just my DP and his ex-wife’s incomes, now all of a sudden they want me included. Why is that? Surely we’ve always been a ‘household’ regardless of whether stepson was here 100% or 50% of the time.

All that’s fine as long as you’re not expecting the taxpayer to help you maintain your financial ‘independence’

Thats why it reduces when you move someone in. It was a choice.

Yeah I cross posted with the OP when she eventually explained that. I can see why that means they want to assess her income (although I think that’s ridiculous too as she is not a parent) but it still doesn’t make any sense that she would be held liable to pay them.

How would that even work? Presumably as she is not a parent or legal guardian she would not have the authority to remove the child from the school, but is expected to just carry on paying?

But why is his ex wife no longer paying?

You're not being open enough with all of this.

If she’s no longer allowed access (due to abuse), are her Parental Rights removed, and therefore also her Parental Responsibilities?

Social services and the court have ordered all contact with stepson is to go through my DP, as she’s utterly inappropriate and abusive. She’s said she’d rather have nothing to do with him in that case, including financially. She’s on PIP and UC for her significant mental health difficulties so even going on the child maintenance calculator indicates we’d only get £7 a week.

That's a good idea. I'm friends with a bursar. Honestly it can be very tangled families money wise. One chap had been married four times, had a child from three marriages all went to the same private school.

Another case the father paid a years school fees to the mother in advance. Mother spent it on herself, then moved the child to another school the following year. She'd done this three times.

Bursar's should write a book.

Just a thought, our private school will allow any family member to sign the fee agreement, would it make sense to ask a grandparent, uncle/auntie etc? Find someone who doesn’t have an income? Equally do the grandparents live locally? Could their address reasonably be the address the school held?

But hang on- you said you'd be liable whatever (jointly and severally) so why is she allowed not to pay?

If she can just walk away from the agreement, why should you pick up the tab?

It's their issue to sort out.

What a terrible situation this seems to be. You all have my sympathy.

If at all possible, it would be best for the child not to move school at the moment. Any child would be traumatised by the recent events, and this will be even more difficult for an autistic child to come to terms with.

I really hope, even though you are not the child's parent, that you can do your best to find a way to provide some stability and school continuity for him. You have found yourself in a difficult position not of your making, so best of luck at working towards a suitable resolution.

What about the child's own mother abrogating financial responsibility? During the whole process of removing DSS, I find it astonishing that his education was not discussed or even considered by his parents, social services or the courts. So then to turn around and place the emotional burden on the child's father's partner is, well, manipulative. At the very very least, the OPs partner should have been looking at this. I mean safety, roof over head, food, school. It's not a stretch to expect this.

Because she’s told the school she’s having nothing to do with the child anymore and she wants her name removed from anything to do with it, which they’ve complied with probably because they don’t want the ramifications that come from dealing with a volatile individual.

I doubt that will affect the offer (or rescinding) of a bursary. Just points to who will ultimately pay what is due in fees.

But if the child's mum has already signed a contract, and it's still current, then is she not still liable?
It seems irrelevant if she is seeing the child or not.
If both parents singed the contract then the school needs to address that with the childs mother. I thought that was the whole point of a contract?

Yes that's how the government see it so it should also apply to OP.

I do think the taxpayer should provide this cushion because it seriously risks abuse to mostly women and children when you force this dependency. I also think moving in together is a necessary step to take to assess if the relationship is viable and healthy and that should be before major commitment like marriage.

The way the government want you to do it is to live apart until you are sure you want to be together forever. I don't think you can tell if you should be together forever until you live together (assuming cohabiting is a joint desire). They want you to essentially move in when youre sure you would.marry them, and then the chances of you finding out that are awful as a spouse are higher but you're more stuck.

They just need to assess your household income.

That does not mean that the terms of the bursary will be changed.

Whatever they have said, or at least whatever you have inferred, you cannot be held legally liable for the fees and you are under no obligation to sign a contract. You can be asked if you would like to sign one, and you can decline.

The legal parent remains the principle focus of financial responsibility.

Yeah, completely disagree. Taxpayers shouldn’t fund people to test relationships. Honestly, taxpayers don’t care if people manage to make relationships work.

The contract is renewed yearly, it’s this academic year where the shit has hit the fan.

Can you partner afford to pay the fees without your assistance? If he can afford the full fee, then the rest is irrelevant.

It seems to me that if he can't, then that is the reason the child will lose the place, not your refusal to become liable for the fees (which I agree with).