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

So you have adult children at home?

I'm late to the 2nd part of your thread but I did ask many times if you had children or planned to have them with your partner.

It was relevant.

@CloverRiver

i had a quick look at my dc’s bursary forms as I knew they were on my phone (few years ago), they assessed both parents whether together or not and if those parents lived with other people whether married or “as if they were married” they reserved the right to assess them too. I know people did state their child had no contact with the other parent and nobody actually checked but most were honest

I think this is very difficult @CloverRiver

I suspect that the school with compromise because if his son leaves, they will lose money. Many private schools are closing because of the VAT impact.

However on the other hand, if you really are a blended family (you say you have adult children living at home) and you have a joint mortgage, surely you are in effect the same as a married couple and therefore, do you not want the best for your partner's son?

I can see you're wealthy- probably on 6 figure income as you mention the tax you pay - so why don't you want to help your partner with his son? His mum has disowned him , he has learning difficulties, he's had counselling- and he's just 13.

If you were married and this happened, what would you feel then?
Would you still refuse to pay?

I still say it's his father who needs to speak to the school rather than you asking on a forum, but part of me thinks you're lacking in compassion.

You also talk about 'if you split up'. [and you'd lose the money you'd paid out].

If you feel that's an issue maybe you shouldn't be with this man anyway?

Just throwing that out there as a question.

Exactly. OP states that she, as someone in a long term relationship with the child's father, shouldn't have to pay - piece of paper or no pieceof paper, she is to all intents and purposes a step parent. But someone has to pay for him to stay there, and she feels other parents who have no connection with him at all, should be the ones to do this.
When the parents placed him there, they knew that at any point one of them may lose their job, the bursary rules could change, and they still chose to go ahead.
My brother went to school on a bursary, and for those 7 years as a family we had no holidays and very few extras, any spare money after bills paid went into a savings account as an insurance for the bursary being removed at any point and them needing to cover the fees. And at the end they made choice to pay that money into the schools bursary pot to help someone else like he had been helped

My take on this has changed since you said you have adult children of your own. They are through their education (unless you're funding uni fees.)

If you're living together and have a joint mortgage, you are in effect in the same position financially as being married (I suspect you're the higher earner.)

I assumed from your earlier posts that you were childless and part of your reluctance to pay these fees was you may have children with this man in the future. And that you wanted to ring-fence your income for those extra outgoings.

Your argument of 'we could split up and I'd lose that money'- would you say the same if you were married and a step parent?

One option would be a loan, a legal contract that your partner would repay.

The same surely as the arrangement over the finances if you split up now - you're both paying the mortgage, but aren't married, so presumably you have a Deed of Trust ? That way you each get back the percentage you have paid for the house.

My advice is you think very seriously over what you want from a relationship where there are existing children- yours and his.

At what point do you wash your hands of expenses for children who are not yours? This is fundamental to any blended family.

You're either in it as a couple (IMO) or you decide to have red lines between what you each contribute not just now, but years ahead.

But they aren’t married, so why are you lecturing her as though they are?
It’s binary: married or not. Two different states, from a legal and familial standpoint.

The OP and her boyfriend haven’t made a long term commitment. They haven’t adopted one another’s children, and the boyfriend didn’t support OP’s children while they were in school.

A joint mortgage is a long term commitment…

Married or not married is binary, yes - but as has been said repeatedly on this thread, for some purposes such as benefits and university fees, a household of this kind is treated as an entity, from a legal standpoint.

If OP and her partner have bought a house together, it's a pretty long term commitment.

I don't see the point of you arguing what they are to each other with everyone, it is the school's criteria that is the issue here, and like anything where a subsidy is being provided due to low income, the household is taken into account to stop people abusing the system.

The household in this instance includes OP and her partner.

Unfortunately what people think should happen is irrelevant.

The facts are that the school WILL include OPs income in the financial assessment, or remove the bursary if she refuses to provide her income whilst they continue to be in a relationship and live together.

Given the particularly difficult circumstances in this case, the father needs to prioritise his child and keep him in this school.

Therefore OP either complies with the schools requirements and pays towards the school fees either directly or indirectly or her relationship is over, they need to sell up their existing property and sever all financial ties, allowng her DP to legitimately apply for financial support based on his sole income.

So OP needs to be clear which she values more, money or her relationship.

It's not fair and a shit situation all round. However, this is the situation the OP finds herself in, and the decision she needs to make.

The school have emailed DP this morning stressing that they are keen to sort this out and have invited him in for a meeting.

Whilst I do take on board the opinions of those on this thread that are contrary to mine, I do think this is a nuanced situation that needs more discussion between the school and the adults involved. Without actually exploring the circumstances, I think it’s wholly wrong of any school to assume that a wealthier partner, who is not otherwise connected to the child and has no PR, will bankroll the child’s education.

I suppose the fairest way would be to base on the parents income, then explore wider circumstances to get a better idea of the family set up (if all adults agree), rather than, ‘Oh @CloverRiver has a large salary, she can fund the child’s education’ which seems to be the tack that this school was trying before being given short shrift.

I am totally on your side OP. You have no obligations to this substantial financial commitment. The boy has two parents, and likely several grandparents plus aunts, uncles etc. who all have a stronger family connection to him.

I hope the school sees sense, and I can only assume that the people who are tying themselves in knots on this thread trying to prove you are morally/legally liable are really, properly bored.

The school are not assuming you will "bankroll" the child. They are doing their due diligence to see whether it is still appropriate for him to still be "bankrolled" by a charity.

So unconnected but when CMS payments are worked out, if the NRP lives with someone else’s children (I.e moves in with a new partner and their children), those children are taken into account when calculating the monthly amount of CM. This means if they move in with a new partner and their three children, they will pay less for their own children. It’s batshit but the way it goes.

Guessing it’s the same thinking here. You’re going to be assessed based on overall household income because you’re cohabiting. Nothing to do with you being his bio parent or not, or married or not. Even if DP moved in with his parents, his parents income would be assessed.

I’m unsure why this thread has gone on for so long because the simple solution is for DP to move out. It’s pertinent his DS stays in this school, for his stability and mental wellbeing. I said this on the previous thread but it’s true, his DS is more important than anything else.

But the reality of the situation is that bursaries are calculated based on household income, and whilst you live with your DP then your income forms part of that household income.

I understand why you don't want to pay, but the school won't disregard your income on that basis.

As a general premis, its not unreasonable to expect co-habiting partners to accept financial responsibility for the children resident in their household. This situation is rather different, because at the point of moving in together it couldn't have been forseen that this huge financial burden would drop on OP shoulders. But, none the less, if OP isn't prepared to financially support DSS, then she needs to no longer be part of the household in which he lives.

Because the child’s been removed from her?

Equally, CMS only bases it on the income of the natural born parents, not any partners or household, as it absolutely should be.

True but they take partner’s children into consideration because they assume the NRP is going to be paying something towards those children.

I do think this is a nuanced situation that needs more discussion between the school and the adults involved.

It should have been the first resort to be honest, as many, MANY people on the thread advised from the very beginning.

Refusing to engage with it at all, and concluding that the school (AND your partner) want to 'steal' your money, while insisting you should have absolutely no responsibility towards a dependent who lives with you full time was really an unhelpful and quite hurtful approach to take, especially given the circumstances of how he came to live with you.

So the child (and me) in this scenario gets penalised because their mother is abusive? The mother and her husband get off scott free from any financial commitments (despite the mother being 50% of that commitment for the past 3 years) and I’m expected to pick up the bill?

You don’t HAVE to pick up the bill (and nor should you).
And yes, the child will suffer, as many do when they have abusive and/or absent parents.

to say: not trying to be mean or flippant, just pragmatic. Sorry!

Why do you think it's the school's job to enforce his mum paying though? If school doesn't get paid the boy's place gets terminated, it's that simple. Like any service, if you book it but don't pay for it, they don't keep providing it.

These are the terms you take on when you send a child to private school. There are extra, more onerous terms when you accept a bursary, as you are finding out.

Hopefully the meeting will be amicable, no one will piss off the bursar too much and you will find a way through this with your relationship intact.

This is exactly the type of situation where a school should be charitable. It’s not the child’s fault that this has happened and I’d hope they’d be doing as much as possible to reduce the stress and trauma for him. They should not be suggesting that they will terminate the boys place OR that an unrelated step-parent now needs to potentially front almost £100k.

Paying private school fees is optional. The mother could be a perfectly nice person with 50/50 and have just decided that she no longer wanted to pay school fees, or have lost her job and been unable to pay. If there was no bursary, the father would have to decide if he could afford to pay all the fees or if they would give notice and the child would move to a state school.

No one can compel a parent to pay for private school fees, whether or not they are abusive.

They are living together and paying a joint mortgage.
They appear committed.

If they are not, the poor child will be pushed from pillar to post- rejected by his mother and then having another change of home if this couple split up.

I'd hope that as they are living together and the OP has agreed to take his child into the home, they are planning on staying together.

If they are not working as a family unit, the man needs to move out and look after his son himself till he's 18 or older.

I have friends in their 60s with children who are not married.
They don't feel the need to marry yet are still 100% committed to each other and live as a family.

If one of them had 'inherited' a stepchild, I don't think they would quibble over who should pay for their education.

OR that an unrelated step-parent now needs to potentially front almost £100k.

The contract for school fees must have an ability to give notice (usually a term). So whilst they are seeking two adults to be jointly liable for the fees, if that comes with the ability for either adult to give a term's notice, then you are not on the hook for anything like that amount.