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 think what OP offers is completely fair - DH pays 3 identical pots of money for each of his children. For two OPs kids it goes to school fees, then it's down to DSS mum to either agree to contribute and use the pot for school or keep it in savings. What's important here is that she doesn't have access to this money.

I can't see how any other approach can be fair

But it’s still the reality of blended families being impossible to treat exactly ‘fairly’

I am funding them, we would expect to include these expenses in the shared family account. However, if we discover upon enrolment that it is too much for him, I’d pay fully.

We don’t expect the mother to pay more than the tuition fee. I don’t expect my husband to be able to substantially pay for the expenses. I expect to cover this for all three.

It’s not even about wanting her child to beat the same school as his siblings as the ex doesn’t even want them to go to the same school she wants to pick the closest to her as a nice easy paid for by muggings op.

But can't you see that the new partner (OP) & subsequent children's mother are making the private education possible for her children? Not the Dad?

Also OP, considering just how cheeky they are, I don't think you should trust her if she was to say she would contribute.
She could change her mind and you would be the bad person refusing to pay in full, when you can, and the child being moved again.

Funny how private schooling becomes a necessity when someone else is paying!

Paying for a 100k education is not the same as contributing for shoes from the pot either!🙄

Why still more sympathy for the first family when father contributes equally? Because the first family had reason to expect 100% from him. Assuming the children were born within marriage, the father had explicitly promised everything he had, now and in the future, for the first family. Even without marriage it’s often privately or implicitly promised. We allow for divorce etc because the alternative of forcing people to stay together miserable is worse. Even so, it’s still a massive betrayal of promises made, promises on which major decisions were made with very long lasting consequences. I have sympathy when that change from 100% to anything less than 100% is painful for the first wife / family. The second wife / family never had reason to expect 100% from the husband.

It is at least logically sound for the first wife to think that the second family children should never have been born and should take no resources at all from the first family. As I said, I’m not actually advocating that view because I think it’s too simplistic, but I have sympathy for a first family who see that resources they had reason to expect for themselves are now shared with others. This is not the same for second families who never could have expected to receive all the father’s resources.

When you started your family it seems that you expected money from your husband to scale according to the number of children you have. For the ex that means that she initially expected all of his resources to be available for their joint children, whatever number of children they had, and now has to accept increasingly little for her child according to decisions you make about how many children you will have. I’m extrapolating here from the info you’ve given and simplifying so apologies if you feel this isn’t a good representation of the situation, but I hope it helps you to see how something may seem fair to you and yet increasingly unfair to her due to the different expectations you began with.

ETA I don’t think I’ve seen all of your posts and it does sound like overall your step son is well cared for, so this is more of a general point rather than a comment on the specific private school question you asked.

But surely it would change the situation, because the "extra" you would be paying if you funded your own two DC's fees yourself would be counterbalanced by the amount your DH would be putting into savings accounts for them. He would end up treating his children equally by paying three lots of half-fee equivalents, and you would end up paying the same as if you were paying two half-fees plus two lots of half-fee equivalents in savings accounts for your two DC.

I don’t understand your point about it vindicating your husband, because the only children to benefit from your own money would be your own DC (not that I’m saying I necessarily approve of that attitude).

It’s completely unreasonable for the ex to expect all of the man’s children to be treated the same because the reason two of his children have got certain options because their mother can afford to pay for it

Are you saying that if OP had a particular passion for lavishing her two children with nothing but designer clothes that The eX should rightfully demand that her child also gets designer clothes because they’re all his kids?

Or if the OP wanted to take her two children to visit their grandparents during non-contact time with the stepchild that the ex should demand that all of his three children should get the same trip?

Or if the OP wanted to buy both of her children, a brand-new BMW for their 18th out of her own finances, The ex could rightfully demand that her child gets a BMW because all three of his kids should be treated the same?

Why?

He can afford it for the younger two because his partner can help.

The Mum wants her son to not be left out and she is using your shilling to make her argument.

She could get a higher paid role, do more training but suspect she won’t want to do this not when you are around to pay for her.

And ditto what others have said. Dont become a blended family unless you discuss these sorts of issues in advance of having more children.

This is a good point.

But you DO have a voice OP. It is you who has brought the concept of private schooling into the family - and unfortunately it is a family that is bigger than just "your" two dc.

Nothing is ever fair in blended families that’s the point isn’t it, even when there isn’t a financial difference.

What if the ex was suddenly the minted one with the child at private school and the younger boys were at state. That wouldn’t be fair either but nobody would be demanding someone that wasn’t a parent of them pay.

If op and her dh split if sounds like she would be perfectly capable of putting her two children in private school fully funded. The then Ex wouldn’t be able to fund his three children. Sounds like the step child is already better off thanks to op coming along rather than being disadvantaged due to extra siblings.

She lives with her parents

I think you and your husband should stop being so transactional. You need to work together on this and make sure that all children get the same opportunity. I personally would not marry someone with other children if I wasn't willing to treat then exactly as a I would my own.

Well plenty of blended families would say yes to all of that.

There should not be discernible differences in how a man's (in this instance) three children are treated.

Nothing is ever fair in blended families that’s the point isn’t it, even when there isn’t a financial difference.

You say that as if it's a key merit.

If SS mum is working part time then yes that does change my opinion. She at least needs to work full time and contribute something as she is the one pushing for her son to move schools and go to private school.

Even if she starts just contributing 10/20% from moving to full time. If she has no health reason why she can’t work full time she can’t work part time and demand you pay private school for SS.

I do think he should go though, if he wants to? Has anyone spoken to him? He might not want to leave his current friends. If not, it can be reoffered end of primary? Or even say y5 so he has few years to settle into prep system before senior school.

Sounds like there are enough funds for all 3 without leaving anyone struggling. I think ultimately all 3 children should go. However it’s badged as who is paying.

It does sound like 3 kids was too many for husband if he is also pushing and wanting private school, knowing the mother of eldest son was not a high earner. He should have stuck at 2 kids, one with each partner, and then he could have afforded 100% his eldest and 50/50 with you. If private school was crucial to him. This should have been talked about before baby 2 and 3.

Personally I’d pool yours and hubbies money and see yourself as one family with 3 kids. I don’t get the separate finances. It’s divisive if you want to build a long term life together. It’s a bit of a transient approach.

If you have concerns you won’t last long term that’s different- I get you then being protective of finances. If you split ex SS would certainly not befor you to pay for. If not and you are ‘for life’ I don’t understand this approach to family finances.

Actually I think this is reasonable - but if you hold the eldest back from private school until y7 and between now and then DH pays the same amount of money for this child as he does for each of the shared children into a savings account, there will be double available when/if he starts private secondary. He does not need to transfer into private now, he can do so when he is 11.

As DH will have paid towards the school fees for shared children from age 4, he would technically (if you want to be really forensic about it) owe older DS an additional 3 years, which means he could try to redress this in the later years or by topping up in the interim. It would mean secondary school could be a stretch, but DS7 may be eligible for a bursary based on his mother’s income, so DH may not need to find full fees anyway.

What I would question @CherriBerri is not whether DH has to match private education for his eldest with the decision you have made to send your children to private school, but whether it is actually in older child’s interests? If he goes to PS at, say 11, and still mainly lives with mum will it be a struggle to fit in? Will DH be willing to find the extras (school trips, school uniform, ECs) that I assume OP is financially able to provide her children. Would DS be better off, if he is in an area with a great secondary school, with DH putting the same amount as he spends on shared DCs each year in an trust fund/account for him to access at 18 for university instead?

Being ‘fair’ doesn’t mean ‘doing the same thing’. Nor does it mean it is right for every child if all his current local friends go to the same primary school and will then head over to a highly rated local secondary, then it doesn’t follow that he needs to go private at all. If OP is sending her kids private because the 8am-6pm school day facilitates her being able to continue her career (and thus also pay fees), and older son’s mother doesn’t need this level of wrap around education/care, then - again - why does DS7 need it?

I agree with you OP
your DH & his ex wife are batshit crazy if they think you should contribute in excess of 100k towards their sons education

all these people saying you should pay 😂
I doubt if they would be happy to be told to pay 100k plus’ for a child that isn’t theirs

I think whatever you do it will be wrong to someone , so you might as well do what suits you best both emotionally and financially

you can’t please your DH and you have no obligation to please his ex wife so do what you want .

your either going to feel huge resentment or be bullied in to feeling guilty none of which is good for a relationship

your husband is a idiot for having more kids than he can afford and for going back on
what you originally agreed . I would be fuming at this and it would make me dig my heels in even more

what happens if you split up would you still be expected to pay for your DSS

I have two grown up DSK and one child of my own ( no joint child - which is where I generally see the problems in blended families ) but hell would have to freeze over before I financially supported my Step kids and I have never expected my DH to financially support my DS either
we have always always had separate money
and we have been married 25 years

I paid for my DH my son and my sons partner to come on holiday with us last year

it didn’t even enter my head to invite my step kids and partners . why would it they aren’t my children

That is a huge financial commitment for 3 kids from primary school onwards. If there is sniping and unfairness brewing now before anyone has even started in private then it’s not going to get better a few years done the the line. Maybe a decent state school that suits them all, not sure from the post if they would all go to the same school would be a better option? Also depends on the kids, they are individuals and will have their own preferences about what school is best for them. Good luck with the decision.

You're being selfish - how could you see three children in the same household treated differently, it's outrageous. Pay half for all three children to go or don't send any to private school. Don't treat them differently that's just mean spirited and nasty. Act like an adult in this situation.

Of course there will be a difference as they are in two separate families. All this equality is bs. That effectively means everyone should be equal.

It’s just simple facts. Bare bones nothing will ever be fair at all because one child will get to live with an intact nuclear family and the other lives between two homes.

That doesn’t mean that the step parent should be expected to fully fund things their own parent cannot.