To not pay stepchild’s private school fees. part 2

[CloverRiver]

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5439568-to-not-pay-stepchilds-private-school-fees?page=1

previous thread

I don't think they are expecting a wealthy partner to cough up. It may be a routine review they do periodically for every child with a bursary to check eligibility, just like hmrc do for people on benefits, PIP etc. There will be a limited pot of bursary money (probably much smaller now due to labours lovely vat add on) and they have to make sure that goes to families who are unable to pay, rather than being unwilling to pay (like OP).

The bursary is a privilege, not an entitlement, and behaving negatively towards the school, such as refusing to provide information when requested, sending abrupt emails and issueing ultimatums is not going to endear them to this child's current situation. And maybe that is actually the plan - force the schools hand - after all if the bursary is removed and the child then has to leave the school, OP's partner will no longer be stretching to meet the fees.

Ultimately it's about priorities - does this child come first, above all arguments about who should pay what, who is responsible etc. OP hasn't stated at any point that helping with the fees would place her in a challenging financial position. So it's a choice.

“Ultimately it's about priorities - does this child come first, above all arguments about who should pay what, who is responsible etc. OP hasn't stated at any point that helping with the fees would place her in a challenging financial position. So it's a choice.“

To OP? Of course not, why would he?

The thing is, no she shouldn't 'have' to do it, but equally, if her partner lost his job, if he became ill and unable to work, if the house suddenly needed additional repairs that aren't covered by insurance, If interest rates changed, if about 100 different things happened, the OPs contribution to the family as a whole would change. There's lots of things we end up doing when we live with someone which aren't necessarily equal, but become necessary because the relationship isn't transactional.

I'm not saying here that she should necessarily pay it, I think it really depends on the impact it will have on the whole family. She shouldn't be made to struggle because of it. But the impression I'm getting is this is more about the principle of it rather than it actually having a noticeable effect on her finances. Perhaps I'm wrong but she's done nothing to counter that suggestion.

You think a traumatised, autistic child who has been abused and removed from his mother who has no contact, who attends a nuturing independent school which gives him stablity and meets his needs should be dragged from his school and dumped in whichever state school has places so that his dad can continue to shack up with a woman who doesn't consider them a family unit, and doesnt see the child as her responsibility?

Come on, unless the Dad is also abusive, that's simply not going to happen. Decent parents put thrir children first, and anyone with a shred of empathy can see this child has had enough upheaval, is significantly traumatised and needs to stay in his current school, even if that is at the expense of Dad's relationship.

I was thinking this too. What is DP's plan, apart from 'sending an email setting out his position' to the school. Is he looking for a higher paid job, or overtime, a 2nd job or ways to release equity such as OP buying him out of his portion of the house, if he has a nice car - selling it and getting a little one or public transport etc. When my brothers school fees went up my Dad moved into a role which paid more even though he didnt enjoy it, as moving him to state wasn't a viable option for him. We were definitely not well off, but they made it work and prioritised his wellbeing over their own. I have memories of my Dad being so stressed over that time, and the day after he paid my brothers last term of school fees he quit for a lower paying role he enjoyed.

If OP isn't happy to support, and its pretty much a given that the bursary will be removed if she won't even share her financial details for assessment purposes, then his choices are raise extra money or remove his son from the school. I wouldn't think much of him if he didn't even try to raise the funds.

Then she shouldn't be part of the household that's responsible for his security and wellbeing.

Or remove himself from the relationship, which, under the circumstances, would be a decent parent's best choice.

That’s up to his father to decide 🤷🏻‍♀️

OP has already said she’s prepared for him to move out if he chooses to. She’s not stopping him.

I was also wondering about LEA or council funding, given the child's needs, but that too would perhaps be means-tested at household level.

More like his father shouldn’t have moved in with her if that’s what he was expecting her to provide. Part of the household or not, he’s her partner’s responsibility, not hers.

I don't think LA would support unless he has an EHCP. But if his needs are significant, they couo6d apply for DLA for him, which could be up to 8k a year I think, which could go towards his school fees.

It doesn’t matter if she would struggle paying it or not. While she may be prepared to contribute more to something they jointly responsible for, she isn’t prepared to take on his sole responsibilities. It’s entirely reasonable for her to hold that particular line in the sand.

Compassion! Some people give vast amounts of money to charity to help those they have never even met. Because they wish to make the world a bit better for a person or people. Of course OP doesn't have to pay towards the fees. But she could chose to out of compassion for a child she lives with who has been through a lot. Or she can chose not to and live with the consequences. Some in her position would support given the option, and some wouldn't.

What I object to is her thinking he should still get the bursary when clearly not entitled to it - she expects others who dont even know DSS to pay towards his school fees - other parents, benefactors etc - when she isn't prepared to. That is wrong.

It doesnt really matter who moved in with who (but they have a joint mortgage, so they presumably both moved in together).

This child deserves to live in a household in which the adults put his needs first. He's been let down enough.

I would expect the DP thought his partner was committed and did see them, including his son, as a family unit. Now that it is clear that is not the case, the relationship is doomed, unless OP has a change of heart.

It's a really difficult and tragic situation, and I'm sure neither OP nor her DP foresaw this situation occuring. But they are where they are, and this child needs and deserves to be put first. If OP isn't prepared to do that, the relationship needs to end.

Yes it is, but it's also absolutely reasonable for the partner to end the relationship because of it.

Frankly if the money would be pretty negligible to her but she'd prioritise that over her relationship then that would show what her priorities were in life. Could I trust her to stand by me if I got ill or lost my job for example?

It could be that the money would be huge for her, in which case it's less about greed and more about practicality.

I think from first thread the OP and partner have lived together for years, but the man’s ds has just come into the mix, due to the circumstances of his dm.

The OP does not speak very warmly about this boy - and indeed we know little of the situation - he may be a pita.

But the bottom line is that the school now has a new permanent address for the boy, and that is at the joint home of OP and boy’s father. It is not relevant whether the OP likes him or has anything to do with him, he is resident in the house of his father and a woman with whom he is living as man and wife.

Posters saying “they’re not married” or “separate finances” - well, an awful lot of people would then claim a bursary. Every claim would be from a non-earning or low-earning parent, even if their spouse or partner were a merchant banker.

I don’t think anybody’s suggesting that the school enforces the mum paying? The dad is paying her share of the fees the school agreed on based on his and her joint income and financial circumstances. Those circumstances haven’t changed, only the proportion of where the child lives has changed. So why should the OP now be liable for fees when she wasn’t before?

If the school has a policy that two parents sign then what do they do about single or widowed parents? The clearly can accept one parent’s details if they choose to.

As a parent he wasn’t in a position to assume that OP was prepared to share responsibility for his child. If he expected that from her it was up to him to communicate that from the beginning. I doubt that was the case though, given that in the years they’ve been cohabiting OP hasn’t been contributing towards his son’s education.

OP has already said that it’s up to him what he chooses to do. She’s quite prepared for him to move out if he chooses to in order to maintain the bursary. What she’s been very clear on is that she’s not paying the schools fees.

I think its a default assumption when moving in together that you are both commited to being a family and mutually supporting each other.

In fairness rhis situation is unusual and tragic, and probably beyond anything that could reasonably have been foreseen.

No one said it wasn’t. That’s up to him.

Not being prepared to do certain things does not mean she wouldn’t be prepared to do others. Context matters. In OP’s shoes I wouldn’t consider losing a relationship with someone that expected me to assume responsibility for their child’s school fees to be a loss.

In my experience people usually have conversations beforehand in order to establish whether they’re on the same page or not. To assume, especially as a parent, is not simply irresponsible, but stupid.

Im sure they did have those conversations. But this particular set of circumstances is something that they could possibly have foreseen, and no-one would have thought to discuss.

I think it’s very unlikely DP would
pass affordability assessments for a sufficient mortgage, given his outgoings currently include 50% of school fees which is a stretch.

So then he and DSS are in a rented flat with some monies from the equity in the FMH.

They’ve evidently established that she’s not financially responsible for his child’s education. The current circumstances do not change that.

A 50% bursary is already pretty high - it’s unlikely the school would say “ oh, you have less money than before, we can bump it up to 75%” even if DP and DSS had moved out

Bursary pots are finite and stretched.