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 if i have understood correctly: if the OP doesn’t disclose her income the child won’t get a bursary, and if she DOES disclose it, he still won’t get a bursary, because the OP’s earnings take them over the threshold.

So what will they be discussing with the bursar, as there seems nowhere to go with this?

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.

Well they should not be bringing a child into their set up if they are not committed long term.

But buying a house jointly is a commitment, so your argument is a bit flawed.

This boy has already had a huge upset in his life. He has lost his mother effectively, his parents are divorced, he's got autism, and now he's living with his dad's girlfriend and her adult children.

Poor kid.

IMO when kids are involved you're either a family unit and pull together or you aren't.

If someone doesn't want to share the costs of bringing up a partner's child they ought to end the relationship or live separately until the child is an adult. Plenty of couples manage that.

Anyway, the first port of call was the dad contacting the school so the OP jumped the gun and should have waited for that to play out as it seems the school are willing to find a solution.

Having worked in private schools with some SEND children I did say they would try to help.

This is exactly the type of situation where a school should be charitable.

From everything you have said, OP, it seems that the current policy of the school is to assess the household financials of two adults with whom the child resides. That used to be his dad and his mum - now it is you and his dad.

Every child on a bursary has a need for that bursary, and the assessment criteria for them will be largely objective/repeatable, so that the school can justify its decisions to any parents who miss out or to any trustees of the bursary fund. There may be a child/children on full fees who will have to leave without bursary support because one parent has lost their job - redistributing your DSS's bursary if his household no longer needs it (in the view of the bursary criteria) would also be an act of charity to those children.

Reduced fees. Better for the school to have parent paying 50% than £0 as they are under subscribed. Schools will not reject a pupil just because the parent has an issue with fees.

The email the OP's partner got would be a generic 'Your son is now living somewhere else, we need details of the household income'.

Or... this 50% pupil leaves, the 'bursary pot' is then free to offer 25% bursaries to two other pupils who might otherwise leave (following the VAT introduction) and its net position is better re fee income.

Surely this is no different than he if he goes to university, given that's also based on household income

Frankly, I think this has exposed a fault line in the relationship where there is no coming back from.

• If the op does not contribute, and the son leaves the school, that is likely to have long-term repercussions for their relationship, especially if it negatively affects the son's mental health and/or life prospects.
• If the op does not contribute and the father is worried about the son leaving the school, the only choice he has is for them to sell the house and live separately. Potentially for a decade. It's unlikely the relationship would survive that.
• If the op does contribute, it's clear (and understandable) that she's not happy about this, and long-term the sort of bitterness which I think would result would drive the relationship apart. Basically I think she'd have to be comfortable about paying it, which evidently she isn't.

Father has to choose between his son and his partner, and the op has to choose between her partner and money.

You are going to get a shock again if they decided to goto University... You may not like it, or agree with it, but ability to pay is always determine on household income.

Surely this is no different than he if he goes to university, given that's also based on household income

Yes, the household income would be assessed but the OP wouldn’t be liable for any costs or expenses

True, but as a household they'd be expected to stump up the money, so in reality it would impact her financially. Even if her partner 'paid' all of it, his ability to muck in for the rest of the household income would be reduced, so should be subsidising.

There is a limit to how far a private company will be charitable, sounds like they have already been helping to allow him to goto this school, if you can't afford it or are unwilling to pay then he surely has to join a public school like most of the population.

I agree 100%.

I wonder how Op would behave if her partner was a widower?

Is she upset because his ex wife has MH issues and appears to be dodging paying for her son? (She did mention she thought his ex was 'scamming' the powers that be in order to get PIP etc.)

Or would she still behave like this if the boy's mum had died?

The result in terms of fees would be the same.

There are many 'mature' couples who live separately by choice until their children are independent, in order to give them stability and also avoid these financial issues.

It's not unheard of an it's quite possible to keep the relationship going.

The thing I don't understand is surely if her DP has to move out (which seems to be the way OP is leaning), then OP is going to lose his monthly contribution to their household expenses anyway?

If that contribution is £1200 or more, then financially she is the same off (or worse!) as if she helped pay the fees, so him moving out seems a 'cutting your nose of to spite the child' type scenario.

I don't agree with OP being used as a cash cow now the mother is absent, but that is what the discussions with the school should be for, to come up with something realistic. But saying you are unwilling to pay ANYTHING towards the child, when you are happy to lose that amount if her DP moves out seems petty to be honest?

He's been there on 50% of the fee. You don't know if they are able to carry on doing that. They may, or reduce it again.

Very short signted on the school's part- they probably think your DP will pay fullfees and already counting their money, while in reality they willlose a student.

They'll be losing money on 50% fees tbh.

It's reasonable for them to not want to subsidise a child with charitable funds who lives in a home with a household income above their threshold. They cannot just let someone that could afford to pay not pay because they simply don't want to.

If the household income in the child's home is above the threshold for help, they will not get a bursary, it's that simple. All the meetings and fiscussions in the world won't change that.

So the choice is that OP pays (directly or indirectly) or she needs to not reside in or be in any way financially linked to the household this boy lives in with his dad.

Hobson's choice, but the choice OP needs to make, nonetheless.

Its not great for the school's reputation either. If other parents are struggling to pay and word gets around that Master Moneybags that gets dropped off at school by his stepmum in a helicopter is paying 50% fees.

You have some big decisions to make OP. Clearly you've commited to cohabitating in a relationship that isn't actually that serious to you and dragged children into it. But it isn't going to be as simple as 'I'll ask him to leave and he'll get free money'. You've committed to him and will now need to make big financial decisions in financially untangling your relationship.

I think what I don't get is - if mum has a husband, and his income was not only assessed but he signed whatever it is the school wants OP to sign - would they not be asking him for the money he effectively guaranteed? Or does this now not count as being a "household" of the son so it's moot?

It doesnt really matter what happened in the past.

The current situation is that DS lives with OP and DP, and his DM has no contact under court order.

It seems that the bursary rules in the situation where the child lives with one parent and has no contact/relationship with the other is that the bursary entitlement will be calculated on the household income in the home the child resides.

Therefore, all the while OP lives in the same household as her DSS her income will be included in the assessment and any bursary awarded will be reduced accordingly.

If she refuses to provide income details, then they will remove the bursary, as income reporting will be a stipulation.

So either she pays, directly or indirectly, or she no longer lives in the same household as her DP and his son.

Who has been telling the school your business?

Surely they have no idea what your income and assets are until you've provided the information, so they're not 'expecting ' a wealthy partner to cough up.

Well they should not be bringing a child into their set up if they are not committed long term.

I don't think there's much choice about bringing him in. He needs to live with them.

But yes, this does bring up a whole bunch of unanswerable questions about what's fair.

OP, suggest any grandparents be contacted as they are actually relatives of this child.

If you split there is absolutely no further connection to his child.
The idea that you could be split up but paying fof his childs education is so beyond batshit.

Focus on your children and your pension and leave this man to sort his own shit out.

You sound more than generous as it is.
Don't be a mug.

Exactly - the school are saying “time for the bursary review and assessing the parent(s) and the household(s) of students with bursaries, which for X is now the household of his dad as he no longer lives with his mum and stepdad at all”

But the bursary eligibility isn't calculated on Grandparents' income. It's calculated on the household income of the household in which the child resides (plus an assessment of NRPs contribution, athough presumably that's been waived in this case due to the court order).

The only way OP can stop her income being used in the assessment is for her not to reside in or be in any way financial linked to the household in which DP and DSS live. Or to refuse to provide details, in which case the bursary will be completely removed.

I get that. But grandparents have a greater connection to that child than the OP.

Her partner is a CF trying to make a mug out of her.
He needs to seek help from grandparents and the childs family, not OP.

But the other side to that argument is that OP chose to live as a family with the child. The Grandparents did not chose to be Grandparents, they just happen to be.