Am I unreasonable to refuse direct financial support for my eldest?

[AnOn2909]

So I have 2 children, we divorced when the eldest was 14 (now 18) the youngest splits their time btn parents (CMS is being paid). The eldest decided to stay with the other parent in the family home and has had minimal contact with me since 2-3x a year. Divorce recently finalised and home is now being sold. University is on the horizon and I’ve been asked to provide eldest child with funds. They believe it’s fair that as CMS will stop I should continue paying the same amount in funding (£400-£500 pcm), directly to eldest child. Am I being unreasonable saying no.

No idea, they won’t say. They have commented that I earn more so should pay more.

Have you read his posts or are you just insulting him?

he feels a shared contribution is fair between both parents. Do you not?

What you miss there is that the accommodation and costs are just for term time - they are then going home and likely having their other parent pay 100% of their food, utilities, (now housing) and other costs so it would be fairer for you to calculate your 50% contribution including these costs as well.

He has literally no idea if it's fair or not.

This "treated like an ATM nonsense" is just you parroting some lame deadbeat deflection, and it's embarrassing.

Couldn’t agree more. It’s cringey af. Kids cost money - it’s too late to shove her back into her separate gametes and pretend the past didn’t happen. You sound like regret she was ever born but still expect her to reach out and beg for a relationship. Either admit you don’t want to play with your doll anymore because you want a new house, or decide on a sensible package of support until she’s finished education. Your divorce sounds horrific - you’ve clearly been affected negatively by it - but you expect a couple of kids to sail through without any messy strops or arrested development. Maybe after exams be the grown up and ask her out for dinner to discuss it but stop it with the ATM and pay per view nonsense.

But his priority is increasing spending on his own outgoings.

Parents are expected to support their children through university, that’s why the maintenance loan is means tested on parents income.
If you were still married you’d be supporting them through uni, you should do the same when you’re divorced.

Because the other parent won’t engage and is demanding cms levels of payments

op does not know what is fair, but he rightly knows that it should be shared. Again, do you?

Because I can’t afford it and knowing I’d have to do the same for the other child in a few years time. I need to buy a house and the mortgage will be large due to lack of equity following the split when the house actually sells.

Your ignorance is crazy.

It’s hardly crazy. I worked either weekends or week nights, as did most people.

It was definitely unusual when I was at University for someone not to have some kind of part time job.

You've had 18 years to plan for this. You don't "need" to buy a house, you want to, and you can't afford it. You have kids to support.

Why are you even involving their mum? You can sort this out direct with the young adult.

I have no idea what the minimum loan and maximum loans were when I went to uni but I do know that myself and everyone I knew had no expectation that our parents would top us up. I have three siblings, two who went straight into minimum wage work and one who did an apprenticeship. The one doing an apprenticeship didn't have his wages topped up to match the others, we all chose our paths and were responsible for the resulting income and expenditure.

I went to university in London and my maintenance loan did not even cover the cost of my halls accommodation let alone when I privately rented a house share in second year.

As I said, everyone I went to uni with had part time jobs as most of our parents couldn't afford to give us say £5.5k a year as you suggest to top up the difference

Agree. As a baseline there needs to be a breakdown of the costs and then what will be covered by the loan etc.

Neither of them have managed the conversation but well. But I would expect someone of the Op's age and stage to be better equipped to opening and leading the discussion.

It's a bit odd that it been left to this point to be discussed.

But given its the middle of A levels perhaps it should be tabled for June.

Op, most people on here seem to believe that all fathers should be destitute in a bedsit as revenge for splitting up, but also castigate them for not having a suitable home to look after their kids. Take the decent advice, ignore the abuse.

Tough shit. You should have made suitable plans to afford it. It’s not a surprise anymore that parents are expected to contribute to university costs if you earn over a certain amount. If you don’t then they get the full loan from student finance.

When a family divorces the whole family suffers, nothing can be done about it. Same income has to run 2 households instead of 1. The Mother knew this as did the child/adult. Some people can’t afford university due to their family set up.

All the OP can do, if he wishes, is contribute what he can afford.

Maybe the Mother, who is failing to communicate can up her hours. Sounds like she’s remained happily in the FMH now being sold.

But you could rent now and buy later unless rental prices makes that impossible

Instead of giving your child £400 a month which they could spend on rubbish, can you afford to go halves with your ex on the accommodation fees instead? At least you know where the money is going and your child can use their maintenance loan for other things eg food, books, going out.

There is a big difference between being destitute in a bedsit and renting a home big enough for this parent and their kid(s), which this one seems to be doing. If the kid was just mad that the OP split their family (and we don't know the details) then surely they would want to do anything to mend the relationship? But the OP here is just trying to justify punishing their kid financially for not spending time with them.....

Sorry. What?

He does need to buy a house, actually.

Where do you expect him and his other child to live?

Would you be telling him that he doesn’t need a pension either, he just wants one.

Or that he doesn’t need food or clothes?

Of course he needs to buy a house!

Do you honestly expect people to prioritise giving their adult children £500 per month over housing themselves?

Yabu. Parenting is lifelong. You and the child’s mother need to get your child onto their feet as an adult. Very difficult for Gen Z, as is widely reported.

If you had stayed with the other parent then yes you would be supporting your child emotionally and financially to get the most out of their university experience.

It’s about supporting your child, not facilitating your ex partner. Children don’t stop being your child on the dot of midnight on their 18 th birthday.

Why would he (or should he) do this?

Why does he/she need to buy at house? Plenty of people can't afford it. They're currently renting, that would be where it's reasonable to expect them to continue to live.