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

This whole thing's basically a cautionary tale about cohabiting with someone, unless you've discussed and agreed in advance a plethora of potential scenarios which could occur, and know that you're both on the same page with these.

I totally get it, but don't think people necessarily think through all the consequences of moving in together. That as a couple you can both decide that your money is your own, but if there is any outside money coming in, whether that's from benefits, student loans, bursaries, that it's up to them whether they're assess you together or separately.

HOW is her partner a cheeky fucker trying to make a mug out of her??

School have requested details of the household financials before renewing the bursary. DP has passed that request on to OP. OP has refused to fulfil the request (which is her prerogative). This means DSS will lose the bursary. DP is a bit annoyed about this.

However, if the household income IS assessed, seems likely DSS will lose the bursary anyway.

(presumably if there is no bursary, DSS moves onto a “normal” school contract and there is no joint and several liability)

So DP and OP need to decide if there is any alternative to pulling DSS out of this school and sending him to state. That might be a loan from OP to DP, or OP covering more of the bills, or DP moving out with DSS (though won’t lead to UC with some house ownership in the mix) to try and keep the bursary. Or DP appealing to relatives for a loan/gift for fees.

I agree with you op. I would not sign anything...

This is a particular unusual and sad set of circumstances though.

It presumably already does, given that he’s already spending £600/1200 a month on school fees. She doesn’t have to contribute towards more, or agree to further subsidise her partner so he can.

It’s entirely up to her partner to manage his own financial responsibilities here, which doesn’t mean dumping them on OP. If he can’t afford the fees then the son will have to go to state school, or he can move out if he wants to maintain the bursary.

If DP is a decent parent, then that child is not going to be pulled from school and dumped into whatever state school has a place.

The options are either OP contributes, directly or indirectly, or she no longer resides in the same household as, nor has any financial connection to her DP and DSS.

It doesn't matter how you twist it about, at the end of the day, those are the only options.

I suppose it doesn't matter but as one of OP's concerns was being in some way jointly liable due to signing the school's paperwork it appears that if the relationship were to end then so does the responsibility.

Hmmm…I agree about the options but I take a bit of issue with the “decent parent” line. If DP moves out and keeps the bursary at 50%, he is already stretched covering the contribution the mum previously made. If he also has to pay rent and all bills, it may not be possible for him to pay enough.

Changing school is not going to be an option for this child in this situation.

So the only option apart from OP paying, directly or indirectly, is that they no longer reside together. Given that they have a joint mortgage, this is going to have a big financial impact on OP too, as she'll either need to raise the funds to buy him out (and the earnings to support the full mortgage alone) or they'll need to sell up and split the equity.

The alternative is running 2 separate households. That costs more in other ways. OP might resent the extra expense of running a separate household less than she would resent contributing to school fees, but I think most likely paying the extra school fees would still actually end up as the cheaper option.

And if they sell up and split the equity, then the DP/DSS household suddenly has a wodge of money from that, which may disqualify them from bursary consideration

That's the thing, isn't it. Selling a house and buying another each is going to involve legal fees and most significantly, stamp duty!

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

He needs to live with his father as his mother doesn't want him (and appears unwell anyway.)

However, it's not a given that the father has to live with the OP.

He could like many parents put his child first, not himself. That would mean moving out, renting or selling the house.

I can't believe that if his ex has MH issues that appeared overnight.
It does raise the question about whether he knew her contribution was uncertain, going forwards for 3 years, and if the OP was a safer bet.

It's quite possible for mature people to have a relationship but live in their own homes while their children are young.

I dread to think how this will play out for him, living with his dad's partner, while her adult children also live there.

Are any of the Grown Ups thinking of this child's emotional needs?

I doubt there would be a 'wodge' of money if he needed to buy another house!

Thr bursary will be reassessed on his sole income, and set at an affordable level. Thats how bursaries work.

That's exactly what they are doing now, reassessing the household income, so the bursary can be set at the correct, affordable level. Simplistically (ignoring assets which would be assessed) the calculation is:

Bursary awarded = school fees -(household income -reasonable living costs)

They bought a house together, have a mortgage together, have lived together for many years, that's a pretty long term relationship. Relationships aren't 'binary'. Many couples have a relationship as if they were married, only without the piece of paper saying married. Emotionally, morally, financially and physically they are behaving in same way as married couples as far as I can understand.

The OP won't pay in principle- it's not because of the cost as such.

He'd be allowed to use that money to buy a new home for them. He wouldnt be able to hold a big surplus in savings once adequately homed though.

Where does she say they have lived together for years?

What you've posted raises questions, serious questions, about how much a step parent contributes to the 'upkeep' of their partner's child.

It's not about being married,
It's about operating as a family unit.

Most couples (married or not) share the costs when bringing up a child- school fees, uni fees, etc.

This is all about 'He's not MY child, so I won't pay'.

Pretty fundamental and I can't see the relationship weathering this one.

@nomas

In relation to your query about what laws promote the idea that you are responsible for the children in your house more than any children you make. This is how CMS works.

https://www.gov.uk/how-child-maintenance-is-worked-out

Step 4 - other children
The Child Maintenance Service will take into account the number of children the paying parent has to pay child maintenance for. This includes any other children living with them and any arrangements that have been made directly for other children.

www.gingerbread.org.uk/find-information/money/child-maintenance/using-cms/

Simon and Lucy are separated. They have 2 children, Evie and Ruby, who live with Lucy. Simon now lives with Jane and her 4 children. Lucy applies to the CMS for child maintenance.

Simon’s gross weekly earnings are £207.55 wages and some Working Tax Credits. Working Tax Credits aren’t counted as income.

Stage 1: Simon’s total weekly income is £207.55. This is reduced by 16% because he has 4 children living with him.

£207.55 x 16% = £33.21

£207.55 – £33.21 = £174.34

Stage 2: The maintenance due for 2 children is 16%.

£174.34 x 16% = £27.89

This is rounded to the nearest pound, so Simon pays Lucy £28 a week.

So as I was saying, the Government believe that Lucy can simply find a man who may or may not have children, but either way, will financially support her children in their shared home like Jane found Simon to do that in her home and family. It is set up this way purposely.

Of course it’s an option. It’s also the likely outcome.

If OP buys him out then she’ll have secured an asset. If they have to sell, she will at least be receiving her share of the money back. It’s unlikely that splitting up would cost her more than the school fees tbh.

What's CM got to do with this?

It's totally different.

If they want to maintain a single household, the bursary is likely off the table, the school place will be contingent on OP acting as guarantor, and the extra money will have to come from somewhere.

DH sounds really limp. Yes, importune the school. But also, what is he doing about sourcing alternative funding?

What was OP's response to ideas like:

Insuring her liability,

Lending the money to DH and insuring the debt,

Buying part of DH's stake in the house.

??

They also keep separate finances, with OP’s partner being the only one of them responsible for costs associated with his child. That’s a very normal way to manage finances in non-nuclear families (and actually, there are plenty of nuclear ones don’t operate an ‘all in one pot’ policy).

Because everything we have suggests that the live in partner of a parent counts. towards the household income. That's normal. The only thing slightly different here is that the stepparent whose income is counted and assumed to support the children in the house is a woman. Now she is facing the assumption that she will financially support the children of her new(ish) partner as she has chosen to live with them.

This is what leaves many women in very precarious situations. The Government say the new guy's income counts as your income. He doesnt think it does, so you're just left destitute.

If people think this expectation on the OP is wrong, then they should be out trying to overturn these laws which affect benefits and CM.