AIBU to expect my husband to split school fees equally between my children and his son?

[CherriBerri]

I have a husband, who has a son (7) from a previous marriage. We have two shared children (3 and 2).

I earn enough to afford to send my children to private school next year, and I will be doing so. My husband has agreed to pay for half of the school fees, and I’d pay the other.

The mother of his son cannot afford to pay the private school fees, even with my husband’s offer to pay half, because of her earnings. She has asked my husband to pay the full fee, and argued that it wouldn’t be fair for him to not be able to attend. However, my husband cannot afford to pay the full fees for his son AND half the school fees for the both of our children, just half for all three.

My husband has been guilt-tripped about the “unfairness” by the son’s mother, which resulted in us having disagreements. Because he knows I could afford to pay the full fees for the both of my children, he thinks I should be paying one full fee and half of one fee, so that he could pay the other half and full fees for his son. This way, he says it’s fair so that all children can attend private school.

However, I think that this arrangement is the actual unfair one; as the father of ALL three children, he should be providing equally. I don’t think it’s fair for him to forgo his responsibility for one child for another. I pay my half for our children equally, his son’s mother should do the same for her only child. I don’t think it’s fair for them to push the responsibility of her finances unto me. I grew up disadvantaged and I worked like a mule to afford this; paying extra so that his son can go literally is taking money from the mouths of my children (via their savings), it’s not right.

There could be other solutions, where the mother could save to provide private education for when their son is older (at year 10 intake for example), instead of making me pay.

He’s already at school, if they were happy with his school before then they are only wanting to move him because your children are going to private school.

It shouldn’t fall on you to pay for it.

Can your DH fully fund private school for him from year 7 onwards instead of him starting now?

No one is engaging with the nieces and nephews argument because it is so obviously stupid and a false equivalence.

they do not live with you and you are not married or sharing a life and home with their parents.

I wonder if OP thinks if you go to state you are destined to clean and empty bins? Trying desperately to keep up with the Jones.

State is a valid choice, but OP and her husband have decided on private school.

He can afford to pay half for all three of his children, as OP can afford to pay half for her two.

That's a silly argument about nieces and nephews. No one is going to be asking you to explain why you aren't sending your nieces and nephews private. Cousins don't expect to all be treated the same as each other. They have completely different parents. That's not a thing, even if you lived with them for a bit. Siblings do expect to have the same opportunities as each other though.

I do see your point that in an ideal
world DSS’ mum and DH would pay 50/50 for him and you and DH go 50/50 for your x2 shared DC. That would be fair - but unfortunately it’s not possible.

So the real life scenario you are left with is that if you don’t pool money with DH for the wider family then your DSS can’t go.

I would not feel this is fair. If as a family you can afford to pay for it all I would. You chose to have a family with someone who already had a family.

Really if DH is keen on private school he should have thought about all this before having child 2 and 3 with you. This conversation should have happened years ago. If private school was a priority for him he should have stuck at 1 child with ex and one child with you (as it sounds like he could then have gone 50/50 with you for one child and paid 100% of eldest child’s)

As a couple you decided to have 2 kids in addition to existing DSS. As a consequence that he was born prior to younger two I think you should suck this one up so he can go.

If mother of DSS can’t afford to pay 50% and wants her son to go then she does need to have an open conversation with you about what she can afford. Some contribution as she is pushing for it by the sounds of it, not DH? A promise to pay if circumstances improve? Some openness - as if not you will resent/ watch her every move. It’s not fair for example for her to make no sacrifices if she’s pushing for it, work part time/ have fancy holidays etc. She needs to compromise her living standards/ luxuries a tad if she wants this. If she has no luxuries and is low income then your DH needs to be allowed to step up. Or none go.

Yes, and it’s because my husband and I don’t earn the same, but we contribute to household expenses and all child necessities proportionally. Luxuries we pay for separately, unless they’re large mutual interests, then we split 50/50. It’s on this principle that he is paying half for our children, and he makes available the same half for the oldest son.

Thanks to opportunities created by me, he has recently begun a higher earning career, thus alongside progression, his earnings would ideally increase to afford additional expenses.

Even if I was in the same financial situation, but with a man without additional children, I would still expect my partner to pay half and provide for his children as an equal parent.

I don't think you should have had children with a man who already had a child if you weren't willing to treat that child as your own.

I don't think it is fair for him to have different opportunities from his siblings. If you and your H can't (or won't) fund the same opportunities for all 3 kids, then don't fund them for any of them.

Nobody should feel like a second class citizen within their own family. And I don't think it's good enough to shrug it off as not being your responsibility - it became your responsibility when you decided to have children with his dad.

Reading OPs update I do see her position more. The mother is choosing to work part time and then insist her ex’s wife makes up the difference which is a cheek. If she was a hard worker but simply in a lower paid industry I would get the father’s position more.

As it is while I maintain OP should never have married a man with a child, the ex is a cheeky fucker and the husband is weak. But then I see the husband wanted to view the household income as simply shared income.

But ultimately OP nobody is forcing you to pay if you choose not to.

But it’s not up to a step parent to provide this. It only ever remains up to parents. Blended families will never be the same.

Also, no one on MN has an issue when the children from the first relationship have an advantage over the second children. That’s fine. It’s only ever when it’s the second children have something that the first children don’t, that people scream that it has to be fair.

How would it be fair for your husband to pay fees for your shared kids to get a private education and not his oldest?!

He should just not pay for any of them to go private. That's fairest.

I don’t get even the slightest indication from any of the OP’s posts that she actually gives much of a fig about her husband, much less his son @CherriBerri

And she started this thread with zero, literally zero, intention of changing her mind. So begs the question… why have you chosen to debate the issue on mumsnet and not use the time talking more with your husband or in fact doing anything else

Is it stupid blended family season on here? Why did you have children with a man who already had a child without thinking about this? When you marry someone with a child you create a household/family. You certainly cement that when you create a bunch of half siblings for that child. If you don’t have strong enough feelings towards your stepson to want him to have the same opportunities as his siblings, why did you create this situation?

But that's my whole point. And I'm saying this as a SM with shared kids also.

All of the 3 parents in the situation cannot or will not collectively come up with the funds for all 3 of the children. Therefore as the Father of all, I would just say I can't make this work so I'm not contributing for private school fees for any of the 3 kids.

It's not a necessity so I wouldn't go pitting my kids against eachother and causing undue strain between them.

It’s weird given from what OP says she went to state school team. She seems to assign a lot of value in people to their earnings.

So can he afford the extra half a person's fees out of his "fun money" now that he earns more or is it that he can't afford it at all?

I think if the father can't afford for all three children to have the same educational opportunities then he shouldn't pay for any of them. They are all his children. As your SS mother can't afford to pay half then he can't go, so I don't think he should pay half for your shared children either. If you then decide to pay for them yourself that's your decision.
I think everyone has forgotten you are talking about children with feelings and personalities. I feel very sorry for the 7 year old in this scenario

All 3 parents don’t have to collectively come up with anything. Only parents need to support their DC

The thing is OP, there isn't really a problem.

You want your kids to go to private school and that's what is happening.
You want/need their dad to pay half and he is, regardless of what happens with stepson.
The ex and how your H are moaning at you that you should pay more, you've given your answer so now just ignore them.

If they are both adamant that SS gets to go to private school then they need to work out between them. They are his parents.

I am struck by the fact that the ex was fine with SS going to state school until she heard yours were going private and got all sour grapes about it. She lives rent free with grandparental childcare at hand. If she wants more money for luxuries she needs to work harder for it like you have. She has more control over the situation than she is making out. People are saying it's not fair to leave one child out but what is she doing to tackle the issue? How can she justify you working to pay half her kids school fees if she's not willing to at least try improving her financial situation.

I have some experience of this as my niece (SIL's daughter) was the first grandchild of H's side. PIL offered to pay for private school. SIL's partner had an older daughter and he and his ex wife made rumblings about PIL paying for her too. PIL asked what ex wife and her parents were willing to contribute. Nothing, so that was that. We had two children some years later and PIL declared (we didn't ask or expect) that they wouldn't be paying for private school as it had been much more expensive an experience with DN than they had anticipated. We said fine. No weeping and wailing from us about treating their grandchildren differently. Our kids have done just fine in state schools and get on fine with their cousin.

Not really. OP’s is no more responsible for her stepchild than she is her nieces and nephews. Her biological nieces and nephews will also always be her nieces and nephews, as her relationship with them isn’t dependent on marital status.

OP’s stepchild has a completely different mother and maternal family. They may be siblings, but they aren’t the same.

There is an option for him to pay all of his fees, and forgo his savings contributions, and I could assume a bigger share of household expenses.

But I think it’s a stupid decision, honestly, because the entirety of the money could serve better for his future as a (liquid) asset vs being spent in totality on schooling.

DH can afford to send his son on his own he just can’t afford all 3.

what would make sense is if DH pays for his son and one of OPs and op pays for one and half of the other. Then she isn’t paying for a child to which she “has no parental responsibility”

especially as she can afford to send both by herself

🙄 Christ it's like you can't read

You can't in one breath say the extra money you'd have to spend on your children's education deprives them of future money for extra privileges, and in the next breath deprive his son of the privilege of the private school his other two children get – that's nonsensical.

This is a classic example of equity vs equality. All his three children should get the equitable privilege of private education, even if they mean an unequal divide of spending.

You cannot use arguments based on a traditional family set up, because you are not in one. These are the consequences and caveats of having had children with a man that already has a child – and now it's your job to cope with that.

Wishing the best of luck to his son.

I think the ‘best’ solution here (not necessarily for any of the kids but that doesn’t seem to be the main consideration) is that he doesn’t contribute for any of them and they go to a state school. As a parent, I would be uncomfortable with two of my children having opportunities a third child didn’t, regardless of whose ‘fault’ it was. It would be an inequality that I would struggle to reconcile, especially explaining to them when older. Instead he could put his 50% into savings for them all, to give them the same start when they reach adulthood.

Of course perhaps the best solution for the children is that they all get to go, even if that means an uneven financial contribution, but it seems like what’s best for all the children (not just two of them) isn’t the main factor here. Not everything in life has to be equal to the penny.