Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Step-parenting

Connect with other Mumsnetters here for step-parenting advice and support.

Original poster

Refuse to make financial sacrifices for DSS

869 replies

usernc76482 · 19/01/2021 03:04

NC but regular poster. Cannot sleep as I'm drowning in a sea of anxiety.

I'll keep this brief: we (DH and i) can no longer afford to send DSS (Yr 12) to private school. ExW and husband comfortable but I don't think in a position to pay till he finishes secondary education next year. ExW and husband also have DC together who are also at the private school), but I mean, why would the step dad pay for his step son to go to private school when that is my DHs job and part of the original court order? ExW does not work.

At the same time, our DC1 has started at private pre prep (Reception) in September last year. It's looking unsustainable being able to send her there now and we will have to pull her out next term.

We could afford to send one or the other but not both children.

So: we COULD continue sending DSS to school if we take our DC out. I just don't think that's fair? If the children's are going to suffer it should be all of them?

It's been a very financially rocky few years but we had made it work, sold our car, no holidays etc. to continue sending DSS to school. We rent so cannot get a loan or anything against a property.

I'm fed up of making sacrifices.

OP posts:
MsHedgehog · 19/01/2021 13:02

@safariboot Although you miss the point that despite being in apparent hardship, OP has still chosen to put a 5 year old in private school and rent in an expensive area..

Bollss · 19/01/2021 13:02

@Watchingbehindmyhands

Ah right so as long as it's the second child losing out, it's fair. I see

You think that removing the eldest child at this time is a reasonable course of action?

So it's perfectly fair that the first child is privately schooled from day 1 and the 2nd only gets secondary? Why?

It's not fair. But removing a child at a crucial point in their education isn't fair either, is it? Not least because the chances of him being able to pick up his education exactly as he left on in a state 6th form or school is unlikely. The younger child wouldn't feel it in quite the same way and could go back to private education once the eldest has left.

And of course, the situation is such that a commitment was made, in court, to the elder child's education and any opportunity to rescind that hasn't been taken. By the time it gets into court now and is sorted, he'll more than likely be into year 13 and if the courts see it's one child or the other, they're not going to rule in favour of the younger.

Does it suck? Yes. But equal is rarely about getting the same. Sod all to do with being 'second'. And 'second' in this case, has a slightly different set of parents to the first and a different set of circumstances which perhaps could (or could not) have been forseen.

I didn't say that. Read my posts.

It's everything to do with being second.

toocold54 · 19/01/2021 13:02

You sound as if you are going to ridiculous lengths to pay for private school
I think it owuld be worth sitting down and asking why?

I agree!

I get that you want to give your children the best start in life we all do. But they can get just as good of an education in a decent state school.

How about putting that money away for driving lessons or a house deposit as those things are often more useful than at which school you achieved your grades at.

TheMethodicalMeerkat · 19/01/2021 13:03

So it's perfectly fair that the first child is privately schooled from day 1 and the 2nd only gets secondary? Why?

Eh, because things have changed and it’s no longer possible? It’s kinda the point of the thread Hmm.

Bollss · 19/01/2021 13:04

@TheMethodicalMeerkat

So it's perfectly fair that the first child is privately schooled from day 1 and the 2nd only gets secondary? Why?

Eh, because things have changed and it’s no longer possible? It’s kinda the point of the thread Hmm.

Yrs they have changed but they're able to send the younger to private school after this year but some posters are saying an adults university payments should come first. I don't agree.
RedToothBrush · 19/01/2021 13:05

[quote DecemberSun]@RedToothBrush

Bottomline her is the precious daughter can't go to private school because her parents can't afford it.

What an utterly vile thing to say about a 4 year old. "Precious daughter"?

You should be ashamed of yourself. But you probably aren't.

Dreadful.[/quote]
Why?

The OP is behaving like a complete princess.

The OP has made out like her daughter will be massively disadvantaged because she doesn't go to private school at 4 and how dreadfully unfair this is.

The OP has by her own admission admitted she lives in a good area.

The issue here is about the OP making lifestyle choices above her means whilst still obviously being somewhat well off and making a massive drama out of it when in reality she doesn't really have a lot of choice and has to merely suck it up.

Just like the rest of us mere mortals who have the misfortune to send our kids to shudder state school.

franciacorta · 19/01/2021 13:06

Re court ordered school fees - you can actually stop paying them and immediately apply to court to vary the order on the basis of change in material circumstances. You will need to demonstrate you really can't pay the fees though. Which is not the case if you daughter stays private

Plussizejumpsuit · 19/01/2021 13:09

Well it sounds like it would be massively disruptive to take the older one out of school. What was the thinking in sending the little one when you can't actually afford it?

excelledyourself · 19/01/2021 13:09

So I will have to uproot my children to live somewhere cheaper and smaller again, continue to make do without a car, take DC1 out of school...

How many DC do you have OP?

Bollss · 19/01/2021 13:11

Why @RedToothBrush? Seriously? You can't understand why your comment comes across as vile?

PhryneP · 19/01/2021 13:12

It'll be far more disruptive to pull a child out mid A levels than at 4.

BringPizza · 19/01/2021 13:13

OP are you and your DH not able to take paid employment instead of plugging away at a business that you've stated is not stable? Possibly you need to let go of the dream of being company directors with privately educated children. Whatever your DH has done in the past, it is not continuing now. You need to be realistic and honest about what you want vs what you can have.

diddl · 19/01/2021 13:18

"So I will have to uproot my children to live somewhere cheaper and smaller again, continue to make do without a car, take DC1 out of school..."

A failed business & living beyond your means will do that though...

BellCurve · 19/01/2021 13:29

You're burying your heads in the sand. You should've given up on private education years ago, but it's too late now.

Now, you should remove the youngest child as soon as possible, but you cannot remove the eldest, so you should apply for bursaries etc for him. Then, one of you should get a job so you have a stable income, the other keep trying to make the business work, and try to concentrate on building a stable home for your children.

OwMyNeck · 19/01/2021 13:32

OP shouldn't have put her DC1 into private school, she knew they couldn't afford it. The obligation to the DSS came first.

Belladonna12 · 19/01/2021 13:35

You can't make everything totally equal but I don't support funding the fist child just because they're first and then giving the second none of those things

They aren't funding the first child just because they are the first child . It's because it's court-ordered and they haven't been to court to change that . It would have been reasonable to do that a few years ago but now would be extremely disruptive on the first child and not at all similar to sending the second child to a different school . The second child will be privately educated most of their schooling and will probably have many advantages that the first child didn't in their childhood.

londonscalling · 19/01/2021 13:36

Keep the oldest there to finish his education. Once he's finished then the youngest can start!

Bollss · 19/01/2021 13:36

@OwMyNeck

OP shouldn't have put her DC1 into private school, she knew they couldn't afford it. The obligation to the DSS came first.
Yes but that obligation ends in a year. They are not obligated to pay him through uni at the detriment to their other child.
Cameleongirl · 19/01/2021 13:38

Haven’t read the full 19 pages but I agree with an early poster who suggested your DH speaks to the Bursar’s Office to see whether a scholarship/financial aid is available. The school won’t want to lose your DSS is his final year and most private schools have some funds to help families whose financial situation has changed.

I actually think he’d be highly likely to qualify for financial help, given your circumstances.

scentedgeranium · 19/01/2021 13:39

Your youngest will still be education you know. You talk about leaving private like it's the end of the world. Just join the rest of the world and send to a local school. Honestly they'll be fine!

Belladonna12 · 19/01/2021 13:40

Yes but that obligation ends in a year. They are not obligated to pay him through uni at the detriment to their other child.

Nobody is obliged to pay for their child through uni but it's very hypocritical to state that they should be treated equally when you presumably think that the second child should get help going to university . Assuming the ex-wife contributes it will be about 2.5k a year so even if they don't contribute it's not going to mean OP can afford to send her child to a private school if she genuinely is hard up.

arethereanyleftatall · 19/01/2021 13:42

Many posters are responding as if both parents are still together, but this is a totally different situation.

For sure - if they were still together and they could no longer afford private for their children, then the child shouldn't be in private.

This is totally different.

The dh had a commitment court ordered of paying for private school for his child with his ex.

He/the op THEN chose to do things they couldn't afford.

Swiftjogger · 19/01/2021 13:43

Of course the dss will need support for university, these mythical jobs that most people claim their dc work to pay for accommodation , food, books etc do not exist at the moment and some degrees don’t lend themselves to earning 3k on the side to supplement the insufficient maintenance loan.

Compared to a very young child needing pre prep there is no comparison.

Who pays for it will need to be sorted out between the parents but this young man does not not deserve to be collateral damage.

Swiftjogger · 19/01/2021 13:44

I would be very surprised if the court order does not include provision for university too. The finances must have been healthy at the point it was made.

Bollss · 19/01/2021 13:45

@Belladonna12

Yes but that obligation ends in a year. They are not obligated to pay him through uni at the detriment to their other child.

Nobody is obliged to pay for their child through uni but it's very hypocritical to state that they should be treated equally when you presumably think that the second child should get help going to university . Assuming the ex-wife contributes it will be about 2.5k a year so even if they don't contribute it's not going to mean OP can afford to send her child to a private school if she genuinely is hard up.

Presumably you haven't read my prev post.
Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

Join Mumsnet Log In

This thread is closed and is no longer accepting replies. Click here to start a new thread.

Swipe left for the next trending thread