Refuse to make financial sacrifices for DSS

[usernc76482]

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.

SM bingo!

@franciacorta How do you know how long she waited before remarrying and having another DC? Or that she "continued" being a SAHM? Who said she's always been one?

OP mentions none of that, yet you seem to want to paint the ex as some sort of lazy, entitled woman, popping out babies to well off men so she doesn't have to work.

[quote excelledyourself]@franciacorta How do you know how long she waited before remarrying and having another DC? Or that she "continued" being a SAHM? Who said she's always been one?

OP mentions none of that, yet you seem to want to paint the ex as some sort of lazy, entitled woman, popping out babies to well off men so she doesn't have to work. [/quote]
I don't. But being a SAHM with 2 school aged children sounds like a choice rather than a necessity so I assumed. I similarly judge OP who rents and sends her child to a private school but doesn't seem to work. And I mentioned before i think it would be fair for both women to work and contribute to the school fees of their respective children

I think OP does work. She's talks about not having time off, and making the business work.

This thread has gone crazy with assumptions and judgements based on very little information.

@excelledyourself

I think OP does work. She's talks about not having time off, and making the business work.

This thread has gone crazy with assumptions and judgements based on very little information.

You are right. We all are not being at all kind. Lots of frustrations and personal experiences- I certainly projected a lot. Women are women's worst enemies:(

@frazzledasarock

Speak to school see if it’s possible for DSS to get a scholarship of bursary for his final year.

I really would try and avoid pulling my child out of their school in their final year of A’Levels.

Could you pull your DD out for now with a view to sending her to private school in year one after DSS has finished?

I’d do this, if possible. But OP I really do feel for you and know just how draining this must be.

DH’s Ex pushed and pushed for SDC to go private and then very quickly reneged on her promised half of the finances, while simultaneously insisting they stayed in, leaving us to carry the entire burden or be the bad guys. The sacrifices are real. If you can do one more year you can then you will have done DSS as huge service and can then focus on your DD’s education.

The more I see of court orders the more blunt and unfair they often seem.

The more I see of court orders the more blunt and unfair they often seem.

Sometimes but often not the case with private fees. I know quite a few women who traded off a lower payout initially for certain things such as private school fees at current school and orthodontics to be paid by the dad moving forward. That includes some kids who are in infant years (e.g. Yr1/2). Lots of privates around us are K-12 but one agreement I know of where this was not the case specified progression to an agreed private high school as part of the financial agreement. Men seem quite fine to agree to all of this at the time to lose less from the pot than they otherwise would have. Often it’s a trade off against his super. Men tend to have bigger super pots and instead of the wife being entitled to take in many cases over half along with the rest of the financial settlement they seem overjoyed to trade off the wife making no claim on that and paying things like school fees, orthodontics, private medical instead.

How is it fair in these cases that the ex-wife has forgone assets in the financial settlement preferring to trade off things she views as important for her kids for the man to start another family, start to feel the pinch money wise then have the new wife bitch about the original agreement for his first kids. Not saying this is the case with the OP but I know cases where this happens.

How is it fair in these cases that the ex-wife has forgone assets in the financial settlement preferring to trade off things she views as important for her kids for the man to start another family, start to feel the pinch money wise then have the new wife bitch about the original agreement for his first kids
A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
The future is unknown, health and finances change, and later children shouldn’t be punished because their fathers circumstances changed and their older sibling must be protected from it at all costs.
These types of court orders are madness.

It would be cruel with only one year to go. The time to move should have been at the start of sixth form, not now. Anyway modules and curriculum will be different in another school, even if the same exam boards are used. You can't do it to him. Mum might have to step up and make some sacrifices too.

@Youseethethingis:
Those type of arrangements make perfect sense in many situations. My ex and I made such an agreement. I earned as much as he did, and I did not need the property settlement that he would have been required to pay in full at the time. I agreed instead that he would pay it out in monthly installments over time as an educational trust for our children to use for higher education.

Although he has to pay it for 10 years , it allowed him not to have to tap into his savings at the time and it gave him certain tax benefits. It was a win for him at the time.

If he were to want future children, he would have to make that decision knowing what his existing financial obligations are and he would have to decide. I would have never agreed to mortgage my children's future to insure that he could have more children. What he had , we built together. If he wanted more children , his then partner could start the building process in the same way that we did and struggle the same way that we did in those early days.

Fortunately for all of us, things have worked out well, and neither of us want more children.

These types of court orders are madness.

Men don’t see it that way though. They see it as an immediate win. That lets them move on immediately with a larger asset pot so in the main they are all for it. The next woman that comes along finds his decent assets to be a positive thing. Second family occurs and then the problems start. Funnily though when the second wife cries poor, that her children are disadvantaged and that the situation is unfair she refuses to take into account that her husband only entered into their marriage in a decent financial state because of the arrangement, had it not been for that he would never have been an attractive proposition to start her new life with.

Yes, as I said “at the time” and “immediately” seems to be the swaying factor. A lot can happen. Even without the possibility of future children, things can an do change dramatically.
It’s a big chance to take in the name of “at the time” and “immediately”.

You can really tell which posters on this thread are first wives and which are second.

@EmmaGrundyForPM

You can really tell which posters on this thread are first wives and which are second.

And I think you can also tell which have teenagers - especially sixth formers.

Can you really? Most people seem to think that the DSS should be kept where he is, even us 2nd wives (I’m actually a first wife, he never married my step child’s mother) who’s children are still in nappies.
Although possible the 2nd wives are more likely to object to their children being actually impoverished to pay for it if they were in that situation. Which seems reasonable?

You can really tell which posters on this thread are first wives and which are second.

Like Youseethethingis said, “second wives” on here think the DSS should carry on his final year at school.
It doesn’t mean it’s ideal and wonderful and exciting and I wouldn’t be too thrilled if I was the op either seeing as they’re making sacrifices to pay for it. It’s just morphed in to something that needs to be done at this late stage.
And I’m not actually a second wife anymore (never was a wife thank god). I’m now just a mum with an ex who happened to have a child a few years before mine were born.

Agree with @funinthesun19 and @Youseethethingis - this thread has not divided along ‘bitter’ lines at all.

If your dss has been privately educated for years and is in year 12 I think it would be too disruptive to this education to move him.

However, as for your child together, is it really worth the sacrifice for another 10 years. No holidays or treats.

What rubbish re telling who are first and second wives. I’m a divorcee, also a mum, who was in a LTR with a man with children.

I have history of how intensely irritating it is to have an entitled ex wife sitting on her arse incandescent at the prospect of being told to get a job and contribute to her own upkeep and those of her own children (that when I last looked she actively chose to have). But fortunately I never mixed my finances with said man and his ex wife, his issue.

However, I am someone who has advised that the Op simply accept that the right thing to do is keep the older child in private school.
I have also advised that legally there is a court order in place so this is not a decision that can be made unilaterally.

Do I think the EW is taking the piss? Yes.
Do I think the Op has every right to feel aggrieved at the sacrifices she sees herself/ her child having to make as a result? Yes.

It’s a rubbish situation for all involved.