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

People move in together for many reasons other than wanting to “become a family.”

Just make sure you reiterate that you are not a step parent. You are his father's girlfriend and you do not have joint finances.

Do they pay you rent or do you own jointly?

It doesn’t matter because it’s assessed on household income, just as any benefits would be. They are a joint household so her income will be included whether they are married or not.

I will reiterate, his DS is the most important person in this situation and I hope your DP does the right thing by him. The poor kid has been through enough without being uprooted from school too.

This is such an obnoxious “be kind”
guilt trip.

The boy’s circumstances are his parents’ doing. OP didn’t sign up to be responsible for his upbringing merely by investing in a property with his father. And she IS paying for his mental health counseling.

Implying that OP lacks compassion because she is not willing to spend tens of thousands of pounds is so insulting and misguided.

It’s not about “greed” whatsoever. Characterizing her as “greedy” for not wanting to part with a large sum of hard-earned money is obnoxious.

They can say they assess it however they want. They are not the government and have no right to know about the finances of someone who is not a participant in the contract. Basically, they have a poor contract and it has resulted in a muddle because they are trying to drag someone into the contract who has no legal duty to participate and cannot be compelled to.

It sounds like the son is midway through GCSEs and, as such, the school have increased obligations not to disrupt his learning by kicking him out unnecessarily. There is caselaw on this. However, I would honestly question the suitability of a school that puts demanding more money under these circumstances above the child's wellbeing. By contrast, I would hazard a guess that a good state school would be well placed to provide him with pastoral support because there is a genuine desire to help children facing these sorts of challenges.

How do we know it's hard earned? But that's an aside.

It's more about attitudes towards money than anything else. If having one less luxury holiday a year is more important to the OP then the wellbeing of the child of someone she loves, then that's prioritising money. It didn't mean she 'should' pay, but her maintaining an attitude of 'why should I' isn't partially very attractive character trait personally.

If however that money would make a huge difference to their lives, that they'd be struggling or having to significantly cut back on their lifestyle, then I don't think that shows the same prioritisation of money.

Actually marital status is binary.

They aren’t married. Whatever you think of their behaviour or living arrangements, they are no more married to one another than they are to their Amazon delivery driver.

We have no idea if their relationship is based on romance, camaraderie, pragmatic consideration or other. It’s irrelevant.

I know two women who have owned a house jointly and lived together platonically for 30 years. They are former neighbours of my late mother. The only difference between them and the OP/boyfriend is that the women don’t sleep together. Should they be dunned for one another’s financial obligations?

The question asked was 'why would someone pay the fees in this circumstances' - my response was why some people may chose to do so. By saying that to do so would be compassionate is not saying that not doing so would indicate someone was not compassionate, that is your inference and not what I stated.

I said she would be within her rights to decline to contribute, and that wasn't my issue - my issue was her expecting someone else (the bursary which is usually funded by a mixture of a portion of fees from other parents, and charitable doners) to pay when she wasn't prepared to - which is hypocritical - 'I am not responsible for him so I'm not prepared to contribute but I expect others who have never even met him to contribute towards his fees'.

It sounds like the son is midway through GCSEs and, as such, the school have increased obligations not to disrupt his learning by kicking him out unnecessarily.

DSS is 13 - it's in the OP of thread 1 - and so would not have started GCSEs yet.

But that is what bursaries ARE.

One could probably delve around in any student’s life and find some friend or relative who “could afford” to pay the fees. So what?

It’s the responsibility of parents alone.

@No5ChalksRoad

The school are hardly delving around for friends and relatives to pay. They are looking at the (now sole) household of the pupil and the two adults who are not mates or colleagues, but are each other's partner.

Well that goes to show that ‘attractive’ is in the eye of the beholder. She’s prioritizing her own financial wellbeing and that of her own children. I’d consider her to be foolish if she did pay the schools fees, which isn’t the most attractive trait either.

@No5ChalksRoad By your logic, as I said before, I could be a sahm and my partner could be Elon Musk, yet my child should be entitled to a bursary because we’re not married.

Yes. So?

Our sexual relationships should be irrelevant to our financial status. Not everyone takes money from people they sleep with.

That shouldn’t be the expectation, certainly, by third parties. “Can’t afford it? Get your boyfriend / girlfriend to pay.” How demeaning.

Assumptions about personal lives should not be used to make objective economic decisions.

Just because I’m someone’s girlfriend doesn’t obligate me to support their kids, mother, or dog groomer’s cousin.

We have a procedure for declaring two people a recognized economic and legal unit: marriage.

Sans that, they are separate individuals, and the nature of their relationship is no one’s business. If a platonic roommate wouldn’t be dunned, an unmarried girlfriend shouldn’t be either.

One concern I’d have is how it could affect the OP’s relationship with her own children. They didn’t go to private schools and if their Mum pays for another child to do so, what message does that send to them? They’re less important perhaps?

Plus they’re living with her and may need her financial help too. She’s being pulled in too many directions.

As has been said, repeatedly, the school is following a definition of household similar to that used by various government bodies.

You might not like it, but it's a thing. I am not sure why you keep bringing in irrelevant examples.

You'd actually find it attractive if someone who was a multi millionaire, casually said ' I know darling your child has suffered a lot, struggles with their mental health and neurodiversity and is happy where they are, and I know it wouldn't make much of a difference to me, but out of principle I'm going to say no because I really fancy going on another cruise'

There's a huge difference between that and saying no because it would actually impact.your finances in a meaningful way.

Generosity of spirit is very important to me though - not necessarily financially, but in terms of effort and time. If someone has the time, or ability, or yes, finances to help someone they say they love, but they don't because it's too much effort, then I wouldn't want them in my life because I'd walk through fire for them.

@Notsolittlebutstillsoyoung I doubt the OP is a multi-millionaire - her own children didn’t go to private schools.

How’s it going to make them feel if she does this? All children should be treated the same so if she spends this on her partner’s child, shouldn’t she give her own children the same or more? I hope she’s got deep pockets.

But it does seem extreme, to have to split with your partner and sell the joint home, on account of school fees?

I'd imagine that her adult children would probably understand why it was important for a traumatised, autistic child, who was abused by his mother and now has court ordered no contact with her not to face more upheaval by being dragged from their nurturing independent school that is providing stability. They hopefully had childhoods much better than his. Equality not equity.

It's more about attitudes towards money than anything else. If having one less luxury holiday a year is more important to the OP then the wellbeing of the child of someone she loves, then that's prioritising money. It didn't mean she 'should' pay, but her maintaining an attitude of 'why should I' isn't partially very attractive character trait personally.

Its one thing to pay towards the general household expenses of your partner's child, but school fees is something different entirely. You are being unfair to the OP

In most couples both would be happy to support the children in the household.

In nuclear families where the children are a joint responsibility, sure. It’s extremely common for blended families to financially operate in the way OP and her partner do, however.