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.

I haven’t seen this view tbh but I think it’s defensible since time and causality are asymmetrical.

The first family didn’t know about the second family when making their plans for the future. Certainly if parents are married it’s fair to believe that all joint assets and earning from those parents now and in the future are available for that family. This is in line with promises explicitly made in marriage. (If you have chosen to set up your relationship and family different then fine, but this is a very normal assumption for first marriages and first families.) Why should first family children lose out compared to what they initially expected because a parent broke promises and decided to start again?

Otoh, second family knew about first family from the beginning and should be expected to factor in those existing obligations and expenses (and contingency for unforeseen needs). If you don’t like the prior obligations then don’t marry or have kids with someone that already has a family.

Why does op get to enforce her beliefs about 50/50 finances in relationship and child rearing onto the first family? Lots of families have a higher earner, it wouldn’t be at all normal for parents to say we won’t do this for our kids because we can’t both afford 50% they look at whether they can together afford 100%.

I think YABU anyway, but I also don't really see how you can get your own way on this.

If he can't contribute an amount you are happy with because he is paying for his DS, then what? They just won't go to private school, or you'll end up footing the whole bill anyway?

If the half siblings go, it's understandable.

Because my children would have savings as an adult, his would not, in this scenario.

She can demand what she wants. The husband can say no.

Absolutely 💯

Which is why I've repeatedly mentioned throughout this thread that it should have been a clear conversation prior to having kids and marriage.

Why is he even discussing your children's future schooling with his ex? There is no need for him to. He is completely to blame for this situation. Makes me think he's done it deliberately to lord his wealthy wife over his ex.

That’s going to happen regardless, you shouldn’t concern yourself with that.

This is clearly misapplication of my words by way of eliminating context. It’s happening a lot, and it’s unpleasant.

This ^

And his new, high paid job.

I understand that. What I'm hearing through this thread is how you feel unhappy and put upon. There's more going on, isn't there?
Please consider couples counselling.
Feeling "used by everyone" isn't good or healthy.

It’s certainly his choice and I wouldn’t stop him; I’m not against him having savings/going private. I care about the father providing equally, if this is what he thinks is best, I would have no issue in facilitating it.

I feel sorry for you because you’re a bit stuck. Divorce, and you’ll end up paying 2x fees; stay together and pay 1.5x to subsidise his ex.

If he won’t stand up for what’s right, which means treating his kids equally, I’d struggle to stay with him.

Mad isn't it!!

& don't forget lives with her parents & goes on loads of holidays, while Dad pays for additional tuition & EC.

fair enough to say she won't contribute 50% to private school NOT fair enough to expect the OP to pay it!

Yes, I think she's got a bit stuck.

He doesn’t want to provide equally because he thinks you should pay more. That’s what it boils down to.

Frankly, paying for DH’s son is not your responsibility.

That said, it would be nicest and best for the family if all 3 were visibly treated the same.

You have separate finances so you need to work out a way where husband can pay for all 3 of his children to go. This may involve splitting ownership of any property for example.

Let’s say you own currently jointly own a house and have about £300k equity. Instead of being joint tenants with 50% each you need to become tenants in common where he owns x% and you own y%. Basically in return for you paying for half of DH sons school fees (which might amount ot £100k?) then you get to own £300k of the house and DH gets to own £100k of the house.

Learn to use some manners

I think your DH needs to explain very clearly to his ex that the only reason your children can afford private schooling is because their mother first of all works full time and secondly contributes 50%. As DSS's mother cannot contribute the 50% even with your generous offer of a 10% reduction and wants to continue just working part time, she cannot expect the same. I'm sorry you've taken a battering on here op, it seems very clear cut to me, and I think your DH is being very unreasonable and needs to don his big boy pants re the ex. Of course he is entitled to withdraw his 50% from all of the children if he feels that it would be unfair to DSS and that is something you may have to come to terms with.

I suggested this but OP doesn’t want to provide a loan. I also think, as they’re married, it’s not enforceable on divorce.

CMS tells her how much he earns.

She was told because we wanted to extend that same offer to her, alongside other alternatives. They don’t have a bad coparenting relationship because they have adopted a parallel parenting approach, so as a family we don’t experience high levels of conflict.

This has probably been the biggest conflict, in my personal marriage, because I feel as though his response was unfair to me and my efforts, and betrayal of what we agreed on when marrying and having children. It’s largely the principle of it.

This might actually be the best solution though tbh. Frankly I'd consider the DSS to have a much better deal getting £££ for a house deposit etc in future rather than chucking it at a private education for primary age.

RIGHT HERE. THIS!

I’d feel exactly the same as you.

He’s prioritising his first child over your shared children. And using you to do so.

Fine but with attitudes like that it would probably best for you not to get involved with men with children