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 just pay half the fees for your kids and move on. Your DH can’t send his previous child if you don’t pay any more towards it, so that’s that. He’s not yours to subsidise.

Ex can get a full time job if she’s so inclined.

It’s exactly what we do and it’s fine. SDC used to moan but have grown up to realise their DM never worked, so never contributed. She gets their ire now… not your monkeys.

What a bitchy (and inaccurate) post.

Her dh could say he won't pay for any if he can't afford it for all, which would be entirely reasonable. I think the fairness is a bit of a red herring in a way. He is your stepson and you, as a family unit, can afford to do the morally right thing. The kind thing.

I'd suggest the husband paying half of the OP's children's fees and then putting the equivalent sum into a savings account for the step-child.

I think at 18 that money will seem far more useful to him than it having been spent on a private education.

I agree with you op. You need to wire it to her as you have here that in effect you would be paying half her son’s school fees when she should be doing that if she wants him to attend private. You shouldn’t have shared anything with her and just let her think you were funding it all while your husband still out his hand away for his eldest son. If she wants him at private then she pays. On a side note - Is there really not a good school near you that they could attend? Think of all the money you’d save.

Yes, there's a lot of entitled women out there who despite not providing for their own kids, think an unrelated woman has a duty to.

When you married your DH you took on his son too.
The mother says she can’t afford it, not that she won’t pay.
You can easily afford it so just stop being mean? Or don’t, but you’ll reap the rewards

This is the sensible answer.

Then the ex can either top it up by working more or just know it’s sat there for their shared child.

There will be differences, but I am assuming you accept that in a non-blended family things should work out fairly as between siblings overall?

The point is these children are ALL Op's DH's: he should stick to that philosophy and I'm actually quite impressed that he has.

Yes, one child might learn violin while another goes to tennis coaching instead. There can be differences, but I do not believe that unless it best suits the interest of the particular children for SEN/social issues or similar, one should have a state education while the others are privately educated.

You must have an incredibly vast amount of money, OP, to theoretically be able to afford private school fees for three children, plus extracurriculars, trips, uniforms etc. That's about £100k spare per year for the next twelve years.

It's particularly unusual to be able to afford this alone as the mother of two preschool children.

Is there some sort of massive backstory where you're in a poor country where the state schools are dire and private school is not that expensive?

I am not sure why you're so keen to create this division between the children. Why don't you pay for the younger two and let your husband pay for the eldest? That's parity of outcome, and also the kindest thing to do.

It isn't such an unusual position for women in careers such as law or banking.

I agree with this.

I agree with this, but would add he should contribute what he can towards the youngest two as well.

But there is an argument that, as a family, they cannot afford it. The DF has three children.

If your husband cannot afford to send all 3 of his children and treat them equally then none should be going private irrelevant of who has which mother. His money needs to be split equally between all three.

I don't doubt there are high earning women in this country. Also those with trust funds etc. But even those in banking and law don't have the disposable income they used to have, with housing costs spiralling out of control and school fees skyrocketing.

I agree! I’ve been reading through your posts OP and I think you’re handling the negative comments so well.

I’m yet to disagree with a single thing you’ve said. I genuinely wonder what these posters critiquing you would actually do in your position. Too much hate coming at you for jealousy I suspect.

Can you work out the cost of all 3 and just pay 50:50?

Or maybe lower or stop the maintenance payments?

Yes. It seems that the OP doesn’t understand math.

On the basis that your finances are separate…I think that your DH needs to treat his children the same. He works out what he can afford on school fees and that amount is divided equally between the 3 children. He and his ex can then negotiate re CMS potentially. You can contribute your share for your DC and then help DSS with clubs and activities.

This way your DH is treating all children equally.

Far too easy to spend someone else’s money or your own hypothetical money.

I bet op wouldn’t actually be as bothered about helping if the mother would actually pay anything towards it. But so far the mum wants to pay £0 and get her own private pick of private school and that’s bloody annoying for someone who basically wants a handout.

No. He can’t have a scenario where 2 of his children go to private school and 1 doesn’t. Unfortunately this is just one of those sticking points when you have a stepchild. You need to be honest with yourself, you wouldn’t tolerate it in his shoes.

It's not about equality it's about fairness. The op's perspective is that it's unfair to her - but has no concept of unfairness towards the children. The kids didn't choose to be in a blended family the OP did. That comes with choices that are fair to all children not just your 'own'.

Agree. I hate to be ‘that’ person but you chose to get together with somebody with an existing child and have more children with him. Either you pay the full cost of your kids school fees, or you find a way to send DSS as well, or nobody goes.

Thank you for clarifying at the end. This isn’t as a critique, I’m genuinely asking, please.

1. Does this apply, for you, if the first child/children were born in an unmarried home where no such commitments were made?

2. Why should the parents expect 100% of that income being devoted to the child after they separate?

During separation, the parents stop agreeing to share resources as one household, that supports both adults and children. As such, parental income was 100% to the household with a % to each child/household member - it was never 100% of the income dedicated to the child/children.

Post separation, they become two individual households, with the nonresident parent giving a % of their income towards the upbringing of said children. In doing this, the parents are upholding their financial commitments to the children, despite their commitment to the household ending. Why feel sorry for the adults who chose this, and not just the children who didn’t but still face the emotional consequences?

3. And as such, aren’t both first and second families now functioning under the same agreement - where all parties have the expectation of a % resources going to the previous children, and the rest to their respective households? So why feel sorry for one and not the other, why not value all children equally, as a third party in particular?

4. Why feel entitled to any earnings, post separation, that exceed (beyond normal inflation) what the family had when they were one household? It wasn’t money that was known to be available before separating. This isn’t to say I’m against the current system, based on current earnings, it’s just a question.