School Fees and Grandparents Paying them

[Whoooosh]

Am about to pluck up courage to ask my father to pay dd's school fees.
My three sisters all had private and public school education whereas I went through the state system.

I would dearly love to send dd to a private school but realistically knwo it will be a huge struggle.

I hate asking anyone for anything and I know the money won't really make a huge difference to him but I just wondered if there were any tax advantages for Grandparents paying school fees.

It's not that I want to sweeten him up-just want to show him I have done my homework-and where better than MN?

whoooosh - Its not the cowards way out, its would give you time to get your point accross effectively and gives your father time to consider without being put on the spot.

Anyway I think cowards are under-rated

"Some nannies are better than stay at home mothers. You can't generalise."

And that isn't a generalisation, Xenia?

I have to say that I really do think you have a bit of a chip on your shoulder about WOHMs and SAHM. The OP was nothing to do with this boring old subject.

There are good SAHMs and bad ones, and likewise good WOHMs and bad ones. Some people have the choice, some don't, and some just feel they don't, one way or another. But it really is irrelevant to the OP.

[Rolls eyes and wanders off muttering ...]

I said some so it cannot be a generalisation.
The comment about why have children if you only see them 2 hours a day - but all your husbands shou.d be in the same category - bad parents on your terms or is it okay if the person who looks after the childn has a blood tie? Never get the logic of this - it just seems to be put women down and criticise them for something your absent husbands do.

On my own marriage I don't think we got on very well right from the start, sadly. I don't think that was much to do with work.

Maybe if you'd enjoyed one another's company more you'd have been less inclined to spend so much time working???

My partner sees our daughter for about four hours a day on Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday, for about six hours on Wednesday, and all day Saturday and Sunday.

And he sees his younger stepson every school morning for about half an hour, and each one for lunch for 1 1/2 hours on Fridays, plus all the usual time when they are with us.

I meant "his younger son"

Possibly. We certainly found the times together the hardest. I think that's fairly common where marriages don't work. It's very sad but I don't think that much to do with working or not working.

I quite agree that work / not work doesn't make you love each other.

But I do think that when a couple really enjoys one another's company, they are less inclined to sacrifice that enjoyment to work and find it easier to make compromises about career / income. Those compromises need to be fully conscious ones, of course, not subconscious ones inherited from parental role models or societal programming that automatically assume that women will lead a life of drudgery. Home life doesn't have to be drudgery (I certainly don't find it that way).

Yes, although some who work together all day and live together find that doesn't work out too well either so you need a happy medium and plenty of couples in retirement find things hard, suddenly spending more time together even if they love each other. You just need to find the right balance for you.

Sure, though I for one certainly wouldn't want to work with my partner - I want to see him nearly every day but I don't want to see him ALL day, it's good for us to do different things and have experiences to share at the end of the day.

As for retirement, I think it's a bit the same - both halves of a couple need to share part of their lives and have independent activities as well.

Yes, one reason mothers at home should also develop interests of than just children and work. Sadly a lot of people end up being carers for a spouse through 20 years of dementia etc so I thin retirement plans aren't always what we all might expect and most women end up widowed. I really must ensure my next husband is at least 10 years younger on that basis.

Maybe, or just keep the one you get fit and healthy. We're big on maintenance in this household.

I know but I've just had so much experience recently of relatives dying, my father with dementia, people I know whose wives have died young etc. It certainly encourages me to try to keep fit and eat well but I think even then it's unpredictable. So younger men probably the best thing. I don't want ot be one of those women with someone 20 years older who when I'm a fit 60 year old is looking at stair lifts, care homes and incontinence pads when I'd want to be trekking in papua new guinea. The hips often go too with older people

Then don't take one who is or has been too keen on sports like running, ski-ing, football. I know men in their forties who are already on hip and knee replacements because of early over-exertion - thought they were keeping themselves fit but actually wearing themselves out.

On the whole though as they age those who kept fit are healthier than those who don't take any exercise.

Whoosh coming at it from a slightly different angle. DP's parents are currently paying for 2 grandchildren to go to private school. They are not paying for the other 4 including my 2. It saddens DP a lot and it angers me even more. In asking him I think you should be up front about how he has helped the others. get him to confirm it and then ask for yourself and kids.

You may find (if he were fair minded) that he will tell you that he would have to do it for all and could not afford that even if he could afford yours.

Ignoring the rights and wrongs of private education I think it is awful when parents distribute assets so unfairly in a family.

I have a feeling from what you say he will refuse.

dros, how do they justify paying for those two and not the others?

Well it seems that DP's sister's husband was a bit of Walter Mitty and was not actually earning near enough to pay for private schooling. He hit the rocks big time and DP's parents stepped in. The sad thing is that the parents cannot afford it.

It is also sad that rather than anyone talk sense to her and get her to sort out her finances they are doing everything to help her maintain a lifestyle that is way beyond her means. It's a classic case of her not knowing anything about the finances and not earning herself and blindly seeking the 'best' for her kids regardless of who pays.

DP's parents really can't afford it and are getting on.

Also there was a natural break when the kids reached the end of primary school. If they are half as good as we are led to believe then surely a grammar school would have been a possibility.

I think you have to treat children equally even if one works hard and does well or one is lazy or one chooses to be a part time vicar on a pittance and the other is a banker, you still have to treat them the same.

COuldn't agree more. FInd it hard to understand why the OPoster's father could pay for all the siblings and not Whoosh.