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.

Not really, she's not his stepmother, she hasn't adopted him or married his father, she isn't responsible for him.

Ah yes, agreed. But it seems the school wants her assessed so they can get full school fees out of them.

I know how bursaries work. It's my job to assess them for multiple schools. Different schools have different rules, but the principle is fundementally the same. The point of them is to provide access to students from lower income families and they are set at a level that is affordable based on assets, income and living costs. You can't hide or disregard funds, and are expenced to contribute everything that is available over and above reasonable living costs from income and assets. So you can't disregard a big chunk of household income in the same way as you can't disregard money tied up in a 5 bed house if youre a single parent with one child.

If your household income goes down and you have less dpare money (for reasons beyond your control), you will be reassessed and will pay less. If your household income goes up (e.g by an earning partner moving in) then your bursary will be assessed and reduced or removed.

The policy is to set bursaries at a level that makes the fees affordable, however some parents disagree because they consider some things we deem a luxury as essential (second homes are a common one, as are houses much larger/more expensive than is reasonable for the family size!).

This is ridiculous to even think about putting the responsibility on her. They are not married. She can walk away today/tomorrow and then what?? She can not be held accountable for this child's education. She has no ties to him.

Are you sure it is fraudelent though? I do not think so (but I am not a legal expert, so my comments might not be correct).

If OP looked into @DeftWasp 's suggestion and found that it is legal, I can't see how she would be committing fraud. It would not be fraud by false representation because the statement that he is a lodger, and therefore they do not constitute a household, would not be false with an intent to deceive. It would not be fraud by failing to disclose information, because she would be informing them of the seperate household status. Fraud by abuse of position would not apply in this case, since she is not in a position of authority or responsibility.

Before people start saying that this is deprivation of assets, I only think that is relevant when avoiding paying social care fees etc. Also, since it seems that DP has no legal claim on the assets in question (OP's money), this therefore could not be deprivation of assets even if we were talking about social care fees.

@CloverRiver , once again, I think it's worth checking out @DeftWasp 's advice with a lawyer asap. It could give you all (DSS included) the safest footing to move forward without putting you personally at financial risk. There has been a recent material change to DP/DSS circumstances in that DSS is now court ordered 100% with his dad. It would be a natural time to put a lodger contract in place so as to clarify financial boundaries going forward.

The fact that OP has said if she shared her information, they wouldn’t get a discount suggests the policy is quite clear. So it’s irrelevant whether or not she shares it, as either way, SS won’t get a discount.

Her DP can decide whether to move out or not, whether to try to get a discount on compassionate rather than financial grounds, or whether to get another job or take out a loan or hit up family instead.

I'm with PP, ethically dubious or otherwise - your partner can write to the school and let them know you've split up.

I'm not saying that she's responsible for the child, but she is responsible for him not being able to get the bursary due to her income (which is too high and which makes him ineligible for a bursary). The logical solution would be for the OP to move out as the school takes 'household' income into account when giving out the bursary.

My DD is in a private school and receives a bursary award.

This is a large part of why I won’t move in with DP yet, as I don’t think it’s a fair request of him - but I know it is unfortunately the reality.

Were you made aware of this before you started living together?

Like every other child in the world who might want to go to a private school, but has one or more parents who don’t want to pay for it, then?

Actually it’s his mother who has changed the affordable status quo.

OP, what age range are you and your boyfriend? Why does he earn so low? Is he on a career where his earning potential will grow?

In other words, if you loaned him the money is he ever likely to repay it, even if you were to split in coming years?

I've not read anyone saying she should sign up to pay his fees.

Some examples from the first page alone:

------------

If you are in a stable, long term relationship with your DP, I think you should do what is needed to keep this traumatised child in the school. Chances of you actually having to hand over any monies is low. This child could be in your life for decades.

----

As I said, if I found myself living with stepchildren but not prepared to step up like this, I'd realise I am in the wrong relationship.

------

It took some getting there but I think basically you just don't want to pay the school fees do you? So your partner's son will have to leave the school.

----

If that is what is helping to keep a vulnerable teenage boy going for now, and I saw a long term future with his dad, I would risk it.

---

There is no way I'd refuse and expect us to all carry on as a family living together in the home.

---

You don't sound much of a partner or step parent at the moment anyway.

----

Because you'd be prepared to see him leave his school when he has already lost contact with his mum under quite traumatic circumstances by the sound of things

-----

I do understand your viewpoint, but on the other hand, is this not tantamount to saying I am DPs partner but have no equivalent relationship to DPs child, who now lives with DP full time? So you are putting limits on the 'partnership' that render it to be less than a partnership, really?

----

That’d be so risky. He needs to get a loan from a bank or family over OP.

How on earth would it be 'logical' for Op to move out of her own home so that hey partner's kid can get a bursary?🤔

This is literally the law. When it is said that it is unfair that a father can move in with a single mother and claim her children as dependents, it is argued back that you as the single mother could do the same by meeting a man and moving him in. That is how it is set up.

Thanks @nomas for that, not forgetting the multiple guilttrippers such as how do you sleep at night!!

Can you quote the relevant law / act?

But they’re not even married. I would only agree with this if they’d were. DP doesn’t even have any legal connection/committment to her yet expects her to have this for his son. I’m sorry but if OP did this and then they later split and she’s landed with these expenses she’d be told she it was her own fault so I think OP is doing absolutely the correct thing.

As PP have said, the father needs to either consider his private finances to see if he can continue solely funding his child’s needs or he will need to source alternative schooling with perhaps additional private tutoring maybe. He can’t just expect the partner of the moment to fund in excess of 20k a year that’s ridiculous!

Then the parents talk to the bursar's team.

Taking a bursary means essentially being dependent on charity. A child could live in a multimillion pound home their whole life, owned by a parent's partner, without the parent marrying that partner. It would be obscene for the school to give charity to that child over others living in much more modest circumstance, just because their parent is not married to the other adult in the household.

If OP were legally a seperate household to DP and his son (since he has no claim on her assets otherwise because they seem not to be married or in a civil partnership) as per @DeftWasp 's suggestion, would that solve the eligibility for receiving a bursary in your view?

OP, I hope you start a new thread when this fills up. It’s an interesting point of discussion.

Isn't this just the same as with universities? The government look at the household income of where a student lives and that can include the partner of whichever parent they live with.

Do you earn too much for DSS to get the bursary now he lives with you OP? If not I would tell them your earnings but refuse to sign the contract saying you're liable. Single parents can have children at private school so there's no reason to force you to sign.

I would just tell them your earnings and leave it at that.

Because her living with her partner (and not being prepared to contribute to costs) is significantly disadvantaging a traumatised child who had already been let down by the adults in his life.

Its not really OPs job to sort, admitedly, but this childs father needs to proritise his child, which means he cannot live with an earning partner who is not prepared to contribute to school fees at this time.

Its shit, but it is what it is.

Oh, I agree.
But a contractual loan agreement would be better than nothing, for her sake. Rather than endlessly subsidizing the entire household.