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.

If DP can only just about cover the £1200 pm fees, I'm not sure he could afford to retain the bursary by moving out.

It's a horrible situation and I feel sorry for DP as well as his son, but he has no business being cross with you, it is his responsibility to find a way to manage this. Has he looked into what else he can do (second job, loan etc.) or has he just assumed that you would pay?

Yes a few people have said this no idea where they've got it from - it sounds like OP has more money so it would benefit him more than her to marry anyway.

How do you know he is bullying her?? It doesn't say that anywhere?

It says he is cross at her for refusing to submit her income for assessment.

The household income assessment and signing of the contract are two completely separate things. She needs to submit her income and then see what the school come back with with regards to the bursary.

She is under no obligation to sign a contract to pay the fees, but the income assessment now he lives with them full time needs to be done either way.

I wouldn't bang on about that, they might decide they should have done, retrospectively remove the bursary, and ask for back payments!

Look, your dp can't afford the private school. The bursary is getting removed if you're assessed or not.

Either you help him (with some sort of agreement where he owes you it back, or not) and the boy stays in the school, or you don't and the boy has to leave and you both deal with the consequences of that.

It's entirely up to the school what rules they put in place around literally gifting money to people.

I don't think the OP should be paying the fees at all, that's her DP's responsibility. But she's been asked to provide financial income and I believe she should to support her DP and SC if she values her partner.

Hold on… this is crazy.

the DM is on the agreement and IS still obliged to pay. Whether the child lives with her or not.

thats how it works with every other divorced couple where child lives with mum and sees dad EOW

The school already has the mechanism to pursue the actual parent.

id tell Dp that he can either find somewhere for him and his child to stay or you’ll split up. you’re not the child’s parent, you have no parental rights, no financial rights either when it comes to the existing set up, so you’re not to be included on any agreement to pay anything.

Yup. Benefit fraud is the staple of local news.

I am a bloke, and I once dated a single mum on benefits, and if we had ever got to the point of discussing living together, of course we knew she would lose her benefits.

The same happened with my second wife with respect to the child maintenance I paid. Her income was taken into account. She did not have to pay it, but it was assessed I had to pay more.

I don't see how OPs position is any different.

Bursary is 50% op confirmed

Sounds like he either
a) expects OP to pay
or
b) expects OP to let him and his son cocklodge so that he can pay all of his wages on school fees

I’d run a mile from this.

Even if moving out meant he retained the bursary (and that's not a given, the school may decide not to give it still) he can't afford the fees because they will have two sets of living costs and he's only just managing now.

And OPs costs will also go up.

No one can win in this situation.

The first is fraud. Bearing in mind the OP says the bursary is £12,000 a year, that’s £36,000 fraud over a 3 year period - well into the custodial sentence category.

The bursary is based on household income. How much that income amounts to is 100% their business - don’t like it, don’t take the bursary.

Separate finances is irrelevant - if they are living as one household, the OP’s income gets counted.

Ok so allow the assessment and allow the recalibrate the bursary based on household income. It may well come out roughly what it was for DP+ ex, but he will be solely liable.

NRTHT but if you stop referring to him as your stepson (whichhe legally isnt), with the school, this may help , since your position is that he is not your Dc nor your legal stepson as you are not married to his parent nor have parental responsibility

Not necessarily, as the bursary would legitimately be reassessed on OPsDPs sole income. The whole point of the bursary assessment is thats its means tested to make it affordable for the household after reasonable household expenses (housing costs etc will all need to be declared on the bursary form). What it doesn't allow for is one person in the household refusing to contribute when they are financially able to.

So if they split up, school fees would be affordable for him with the help of the bursary.

It’s quite clear from the first post that he is putting pressure on her and getting cross about refusing to let them assess her income AND be liable for his child’s school fees.

You know this is very anti-woman.

Due to several misogynistic laws and policies in various aspects of the system, as well as the patriarchy in general, the people most reliant on a new partner helping to finance their children are single mothers.

In simple terms low pay for women, shit working conditions for parents and the policies in the welfare system mean that single mothers have the least disposable income.

That means right from the very beginning, we are a little more reliant on the men we date to pay for luxuries like dates, and over time, contribute to our general living expenses. Including those that come from children.

You can try and skip "expensive dates" but that makes it more likely you will make hasty decisions like introducing them to your home and family too soon. Just because you can't afford to do anything else.

If men took the stance that they shouldn't have to pay for our decision to be a parent, we would really have shit prospects for our future in terms of companionship.

And it doesn't matter how hard we work. The factors I spoke of before mean that most of us will never earn quite enough money to relax as single women. We will always be somewhat reliant on a dual income to achieve that kind of comfort.

Because it is for the luxury of private school when there is an alternative not for every day living costs.

This is absolute rubbish with regards to child maintenance! It's the one thing where ONLY the parent's income is taken into account not their spouse/living with partner (and after pension contributions too!).

Speak for yourself.

I got a good career behind me.And I am entirely independent.

You weren't able to do that for yourself.then that's a matter for you.

But I am not dependent on a dual income, and I never have been.

It's infantalising women to suggest they will always be dependent on men.

Man should be required to financially provide for the children.They have fathered.

The unmarried partner of a parent with a biologically unrelated child, has no financial responsibility to that child.

Exactly @RedTagAlan is talking nonsense here.

Sorry but this is bull shit.

@CloverRiver Would he be eligible for the bursary if your incolore was taken into account? This is key, because if the answer is no then there is no reason to show school whatsoever.

The OP has said the contract lasts for a year and the mother has declined to sign the current one (I’m not sure if that means 2025-2026 or 2026-2027).

Which means she has no obligation to pay. The OP’s partner can’t go through the courts to get her to pay because she is on benefits and doesn’t have the money.

Yeah it really isn't.

If per calendar month, £2400 is £28,800 a year.

That is either a London day school or a very expensive school outside London.