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

But OP is not this child’s parent, or even step parent!!! This child is not DSS!

Again, if the father were living with a housemate, would you expect them to assess the housemates income as part of the household income? Of course you wouldn’t. So why, because the OP chooses to sleep in the same bed as this man is it any different? They are not married, there is no legal contract between these 2.

You completely lost me when you insinuated that a no contact order could be made due to whispering in ears and parental alienation.

I have noticed a recurring theme on Mumsnet where certain posters will do anything to absolve a woman or mum of wrong doing. To suggest that a no contact order could be made against a mother due to no fault of her own and it instead be blamed on the dad is outrageous.

So what has dad done to sort this out today?

I’ve emailed the school with the email I discussed on the previous thread and my DP also sent a follow up email outlining his position. He awaits a response.

But OP and her DP are not “mates” who happen to be sharing a house. They have a joint mortgage and are cohabiting in a heterosexual (I assume!) relationship. This is exactly what happens for UC, university support loans etc etc. it’s not that wild of a concept.

And anyway, the school is a private business who can decide whatever criteria and conditions they want re: determining if someone is eligible for a bursery.

It is totally irrelevant that the OP is not married to her DP. If the school determines that their joint “household income” is now to be taken into account for assessing the bursary, then they can do that. And the OP has the right to not disclose her finances - but that means 100% goodbye to the bursery.

Great, so it sounds like you'll have a solution soon.

Yes - and what if, hypothetically ,the OP’s Mum moves in, would she also get tangled up in this nonsense?

I mentioned the ex wife’s dh in your first thread

why arent going after him considering he was married to the mum and she had refused to pay

his long were they together /married

or is he split from her now (maybe he was paying the fees) from the family pot and due to her mh now not with her ?

if they are together again. Why isn’t he liable ?

same for you and dp - how long together ?

have you been in the sons life for years

That seems a pretty shit way to handle it when he could have an amicable face to face with the head and the bursar to discuss his son's circumstances.

If this thread is a true representation (i.e. they didn't just discover funds your DP has been hiding), which I have some doubts about, and this school has in fact made a sudden mid-year withdrawal of a bursary from a child in traumatic situation, they're extremely unprofessional and seem to have not understood their duty of care to their pupil and I wouldn't want my child there anyway.

I’ve scanned through your comments and the other thread and frankly I think the only realistic solution is that he can’t attend any longer?

Your DP can’t afford it, end of. All this back and forth seems pointless when ultimately the funds just don’t exist.

That’s actually quite a pertinent piece of information.

A heavily reduced year 7 intake is very concerning.

It could be that the entire assessment criteria has change as the school needs to reduce bursaries in order to stay afloat.

It could also be that after looking at last year’s financial assessment for step-child and the mum declining to contribute any more, they have serious concerns about your DP’s ability to pay even the reduced fees alone.

I do think you need to play your card and refuse to get involved on the basis of having no financial responsibility to your DP and his child and call their bluff.

They won’t remove the bursary or child overnight. They have a duty of care. The result will probably just be further negotiations until a solution that everyone is happy with is found.

This 2nd thread highlights how some of us walk headlong into financially disastrous relationships.

As interesting as a topic maybe, financial arrangements are not based on what they should/shouldn't be / what they should and shouldn't assume. There are terms and you choose how to operate within them, because there's always a choice.

Presumably because the existing contract is between the Childs two parents (it's never been OP or the mums husband on the contract), so no other person would be liable to pay the current fees other than the two people named in the contract.

The mum has refused to pay, so the DP is paying her share for the time being to keep the child in school, the school aren't 'going after' anyone as they are being paid.

The problem now is the change in circumstances as the child now lives with them full time, and the school need to re-assess to see if they meet the household income criteria for the bursary (they won't, but OP is refusing to submit her earnings anyway), and they are also asking her to now be the other person on the contract accepting liability to pay, it would make sense for it to be OP, but they can't make her sign it and she shouldn't have to, the responsibility to pay should fall solely to the child's parent, but it's unclear what the schools contract actually says.

They can't go after random people in other houses where the child doesn't live for payment, his mother is also off the hook as he no longer lives there or has any contact with her.

So I'm confused.

The school is £43,000, which puts it at the absolute very highest end for day schools, so it's surprising that one which can't fill year 7 is able to get away with that.

Your partner and ex were both previously paying £600/month (£7200 each per year each). She stopped and he's now paying £1200/month (£14,400 per year). If the bursary is 50%, as you've stated, that puts fees at £28,800 per year, not £43,000.

Out of interest, seeing as universities base calculations for maintenance loans based on the household income of whoever the student is living with....

I take it everyone feels the same about that?
"If you’re under 25 and financially depend on at least one parent
Your household income includes:

• your parents’ income, if you live with them or depend on them financially
• the combined income of one of your parents and their partner, if you live with them or depend on them financially

How did the school get your email/details?

I fail to see why your income is relevant for child you aren't related to.

I wouldn't put your family finances at risk for this child. While you wish him well, he's not your responsibility. He is your boyfriend's child.

The fact he can't manage his finances isn't your problem.

The fact he can't manage his finances isn't your problem.

Very harsh, it's not his fault the courts have enforced his child must live with him full time, and the mother now wants nothing more to do with him, it's a very unfortunate situation for everyone involved.

Not many people would be able to just stump up another £1800 every month, but the sting is that £1200 of that is SOLELY because OP earns too much for them to still receive financial help with the fees..

It's not really a case of him not managing his finances at all.

Because she doesn't contribute to the child. The father is her bf so their money, presumably, isn't pulled/in a kitty. I assume he pays her rent.

I'm not saying he should get a bursary but the situation is unfair on OP.

If he can afford £1k a month school fees he's not going to be getting UC.

You can feel that the school’s approach is nonsense, however my observation was simply that the school are looking out for their best interests hence why they made these decisions. You don’t have to agree whether it was right to do it or not - that wasn’t my point. I was simply saying that this is clearly the school’s way of mitigating risk regardless.

Beyond that, cohabiting couples are always handled differently than say, random unconnected adults in a HMO. The income of a couple is always considered as joint household income, it’s obviously a different relationship than a bunch of strangers in a house share.

He’s 13 and has 3 years to go. She’s calculated annual fees times 3 and then divided it by 2 for her share (but as I mentioned before joint and several liability means she’s on the hook for the full cost not 50%).

On what basis is it “obviously different”??

You and your partner want his child to continue staying at a fee paying school. Currently someone else - via the bursary - is paying for this. Usually a top up on other parents fees/ donations from fundraising events etc. either way, other people are paying for this child. Which is fine as his family set up can’t afford it. However now you’re on the scene they CAN afford it. They need that money for another child. If you want this child to receive special education unfortunately you need to be paying the price.

Presumably It will have been because both the parents at that time were involved , so they took the two parents' income into Account as they usually would. They may not have known about the configuration of the family beyond that.