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.

OP: I just wanted to drop in a comment amongst the myriad of venom to say that I agree with every word you've written. I think you come across as articulate, well considered and eminently fair.

😆😂😆😂👌

Since your husband can’t afford to send all 3 of his children, if I’m in his shoes then I would not be contributing to any of the 3 children’s fees. They all go to state school like his first child is going and he gets tutors, etc for them.

If you however insist that your children must attend private school then you pay for them. In this scenario, you’ll be paying 100% fees for 2 which is 200%.

However if you choose not to treat your step son as an outsider but a part of your family, you’ll pay 150% whilst your husband will pay 150% as well.

I second this 100%
(tho. i could only stomach the 1st 3 pages 🤨)

So does her becoming a step parent absolve the ex wife, the actual parent (which she clearly lays down the law about) from any educational responsibility?

What job does your husband do OP? Is there a compromise where he could work extra hard and manage the fees for all three? A second job?

is this argument about more than just the fees, sounds from your original post that you work the hardest!

I think the point is if the second family didn’t exist he’d have more money for the first family. Presumably if he can afford to pay 50% for your two DC, if he hadn’t had a second family he’d be able to pay 100% for the first.

I’m finding your attitude to your relationship quite odd. This ain’t a balanced and functioning relationship OP. Perhaps focus on dealing with that above anything else. Better to exit now than once you’re involved in the school fee situation.

re Step Child, bursaries are the answer and will be easy to secure if you have two others fully paying. Also remember you will get discount on all three if all at the same school.

You shouldn’t have married someone with children if you were going to find it difficult when he wanted to give them all equal opportunities. You said you can afford to pay for both of your children, your husband paying for 1.5 and you paying for 1.5 sounds fair to all the children. He’s 7 years old. It sounds like marrying someone with children wasn’t really your thing. I personally would have never done it because it’s not my thing either. But now that you have, why not let them all go to the same school.

I agree with this. With the way you split your finances I can’t see how that isn’t fair. Presumably he’s not too bothered about private school because his first DC doesn’t attend, so if it bothers you that much, you pay.

I’ve already posted on this thread but it’s since come to light the mum works part time. Which does put a slightly different spin on things. In my original post I asked if maternal grandparents could step up to pay some. But now the more I think about it why don’t the 3 adults involved with the boy, spilt the fees three ways, I realise you don’t want to pay anything and feel it’s not your responsibility. Actually apologies you said you’d pay 10%. Could you go to 33% ish? I know the mum says she can’t afford it, but it seems a fair way to put it to her and then it’s up to her to find that percentage either through her mum and dad or more hours at work/a full time job. I don’t think anyone could argue with a square fair deal on the table. That way all adults are stepping up for the boy, equally and fairly . If she can’t find her percentage, that’s on her, you’ve split if fairly.

You’re so funny for this. Obviously this is so I pay alimony and CMS to him? Then what, are you hoping I can’t afford private school fees for my younger children?

I hope you sleep well at night wishing bad against babies because you dislike my thread.

I agree.

I wouldn't want to spend large amounts on someone else's child, or have to adjust my dc's education to match another child's, but that's why I didn't have children with a man who already had them.

Once you blend, you blend, and it's perfectly reasonable - in fact it is the stance he SHOULD be taking - for the father of three children to say all his children are treated the same.

It isn't what I'd want either op, but it's the circumstance you have engineered. I expect there will be countless other clashes of interest as they grow, so get prepared.

The simplest solution seems to be none of them go. I think from what you have posted you will be resentful if you end up contributing more than you want to, and that will be worse.

I think so.

Thank you for your kind words.

I haven't read the full thread but will your DH still fund DS extracurricular activities if he goes to private school as I can't see that he funds extracurricular for your joint children. Will his ex step up and pay for all these as I think she really ought to - well obviously only for her son

The older kid is only 7.

DH should put the equivalent value to 50% (senior) school fees every year into a savings account earmarked for his eldest DS, plus a bit more to catch up with the years since yR when he didn't do this (he should be able to afford that as youngest ones will still be on low prep-rate fees and presumably he can afford 3x senior-rate fees so he will have a bit of spare). The child goes to a state primary but when he reaches y7 he can go to a private senior school with 50% coming from dad's income and 50% coming from the savings account. Then all children get 50% of a full private education paid for by dad.

I can contribute more than 10%, but at most 20%, because I don’t want to enable the principle that’s being ignored. Also, I don’t want to be a in a situation where the mother stops paying after the first instalment, and I’d have to pay for the remainder of the year. I would hate for him to start, then be forced to stop.

I have even proposed saving the money so that he can start at a later intake. There are so many choices, why force this route, now? Why can’t they comprise, instead of looking to me to fund decisions that I have no voice in?

Has she not considered working full time?

There is really no need for private education in the primary school, especially in infants (Reception-Y2). Delay this, save the money and se what you all can afford in a couple of years.
I agree that the eldest child should not miss out, he would always feel worse off and your kids would tease him as 'the poor one' in the future.

Then would have been the time to discuss it with her instead of assuming she'd just go along with it.

Yes, I have just commented similar. There are so many solutions, but people are not seeing that the mother only wants the option where the son can start now. I don’t think it’s fair for them to rely on the only option where I have to pay.

No he isn't.
It wasn't an issue until his Ex raised it.

His son isn't in private schooling now, at age 7.
This is only an issue because his part time working Ex, who lives with her parents has now decided that their child together needs to change to private schooling despite her inability to contribute.

She wants the OP to pay fully for her children, and for her sons father to stump up for a private school near her.

A complete cheeky fxxker request that he is supporting because he fundamentally sees his wife as a workhorse ATM.

I’m with the OP here. DSS mum needs to step up and earn more. Why should the OP subsidise her?

There is nothing stopping The father from putting the same amount of money that is putting in for his two kids with OP into something else for his other child

But as the other child’s mother who only works part-time won’t contribute it’s really not on the OP